111 ... Conclusion

112 ... Matrix of Potential Solutions

116 ... Appendices

124 ... Lopez School District Bus Fleet and Operations125 ... A Primer on the Local Energy Resources

129 ... Notes

-- -- -- -- --

AcknowledgmentsThis report would not have been possible without the generosity, participation, insight, and creativity of manyindividuals, to whom we are very grateful. Sandy Bishop, Rhea Miller, Faith Van De Putte, Vincent Dauciunas,Doug Poole, Bruce Creps, CB Hall, Christopher Aiken, Tim Clark, David Zapalac, Tareq Emtairah, and Neil Hanson each provided critical insight in the weeks leading up to our research trip to Lopez Island. We owe a specialthanks also to Winnie Adams, Russel Barsh, Anne Bertino, Peggy Bill, Zack Blomberg, MR Buffum, Tim Clark,Vince Dauciunas, Aaron Dye, Scott Finley, Brian Kvistad, Ron Mayo, Diane Myers, Danny Pierce, Doug Poole,Rex Ritchie, Sue and Dale Roundy, Lisa Shelby, Jaime Stephens, Rick Strachan, Gene Van De Putte, Nancy Wallace, Eric Youngren, Steven Wrubleski, Asha Lela, Common Ground, Hennings Biodynamic Farm, Horsedrawnand Crowfoot Farms, the Land Bank, the Locavores, the Lopez Chamber of Commerce, the Lopez transfer station, the San Juan Preservation Trust and SweetGrass Farm for meeting with us during our trip and providingdata, ideas, and insight that form the foundation for this report. In addition, Suzanne Berry, Asha Lela, HeatherMitchell, Pamela Pauly, Sue and Dale Roundy, and Karan Yvonne generously hosted us and provided criticallogistical support during our stay on the island, for which we are sincerely grateful.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Lopez Island, a small community of around 2,800 permanent residents in Puget Sound, stands at a crossroads.The changes it sets in motion and implements between now and 2025 will set the island on a sustainable,stable trajectory, or one marked by turbulence and uncertainty. With an aging population, income disparity,rising fuel prices, and other critical risk factors already shaping many discussions on Lopez Island, the time hascome to turn some of these conversations into action.After presenting an overview of the current practices in several of the islands key systems, we highlight somepotential risk areas for the island and then suggest potential solutions to help Lopezians bring about sustainable transformations for resilience so called because they exist at the intersection of environmental sustainability, resilience and adaptability, and cultural acceptability. We use this novel and innovative framework toanalyze each potential solution and determine its merit. Our analysis stems from extensive background research and an intensive research trip to Lopez Island, and many of the solutions we present come directly fromideas gathered in interviews and conversations with Lopezians and local experts.

We organize our research around four key systems on Lopez Island: transportation; agriculture and water;waste; and electricity and heating. Within these subject areas, we identified 17 potential solutions that Lopezians should begin to implement between now and 2025 to set the island on a sustainable and resilienttrajectory. In order of combined score for environmental sustainability, resilience and adaptability, and culturalacceptability, the 17 solutions are:1) Host seasonal community events to promote local agriculture2) Localize the waste collection system3) Collect and distribute treated sewage water from the Fisherman Bay sewage district for use

in select crop irrigation

4) Create an energy interest group5) Create a value-add communal industrial kitchen6) Conduct a transportation infrastructure climate change vulnerability assessment7) Implement Lopez Rocks & Rolls an informal rideshare program8) Improve bicycling infrastructure9) Promote local farmers through educational campaigns10) Participate in OPALCOs MORE program11) Conduct a solar resource site assessment12) Take advantage of Energy Efficiency Snapshots from OPALCO13) Use available financing for energy efficiency improvements14) Build a co-op greenhouse15) Conserve energy and shift usage away from peak hours16) Increase the share of hybrid vehicles on the island17) Form a local agriculture advisory committeeRecognizing some important limitations to our study like limited time, geographic distance, and lack of technical expertise, we believe that other island communities and city planners and strategists will find our potentialsolutions and risk assessments applicable to their work. Perhaps most importantly, we see our framework ofanalysis using environmental sustainability, resilience and adaptability, and cultural acceptability as metricsby which to assess potential solutions replicable in a variety of circumstances and locations

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions

-- -- -- -- --

KEY DEFINITIONSSustainable Transformations for Resilience

As island communities around the world consider their future in the context of global paradigm shifts, successful growth trajectories will require leveraging synergies between environmental sustainability, resilience andadaptability to shocks and change, and unique culture, heritage and tradition. We call the changes needed toachieve such growth trajectories sustainable transformations for resilience. These island-scale transformations in personal behavior, infrastructure, social and economic systems, and in other areas protect the environment while meeting the needs of current and future generations and they complement the islands culture,heritage, and tradition. They promote resilience in that they improve the islands ability to adapt to or recoverfrom external shocks and broader economic and environmental changes. The image to the right depicts visually how sustainable transformations for resilience (STR in the diagram) at the intersection of the three overlapping circles can simultaneously promote three different areas that are of critical importance to islands. As thegrey box surrounding the diagram below suggests, planning strategies must also be feasible within the islandspolitical, economic, and social constraints.

Island-specific culture, tradition, and heritage, along with resilience and adaptability and environmental sustainability, constitute the three pillars of our sustainable transformations for resilience. We deploy these threeconcepts in our report in the following manner:

Culture, Heritage, and Tradition

We learned a great deal about Lopez Islands rich

history, traditions, and cultural heritage, as well asits current social norms and its many other uniquecharacteristics during our many conversations andinterviews with island residents. The analysis andpotential solutions that follow in this report arerooted in and address these aspects of Lopez thatgive the island its personality.

Resilience and Adaptability

Throughout this report, we use resilience to mean

the capacity to which a society, community, geographic location, ecosystem, or other system canspring back or recover from shocks to that entitysnormal mode of functioning. Adaptability for usentails the ability of a system, based on its uniquecharacteristics, to transform itself to succeed withina new set of demands, constraints, opportunities,and challenges.

Environmental Sustainability

For the purposes of this report, we use the US

Environmental Protection Agencys definition of environmental sustainability: Environmental sustainability creates and maintains the conditions underwhich humans and nature can exist in productiveharmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economicand other requirements of present and future generations.7

INTRODUCTIONAN ISLAND FOCUS...

While even a quick online image search will reveal

the natural beauty of Lopez Island somethingtourists and residents alike see firsthand whatmay not appear to nonresidents and outside observers is everything else that makes Lopez uniqueamong the worlds thousands of inhabited islands.We firmly root our report in a consideration forLopez Islands unique demographics, strengths andweaknesses, risks, history and culture, aspirationsand concerns. Indeed, this report sets out to support the islands efforts to build sustainability andresilience into its strategic planning and growthtrajectory and it could not do so without firstdeveloping an understanding of what makes Lopez,Lopez.With a land area of about 30 square miles (roughlyequal to the size of Manhattan), Lopez Island isthe third largest in San Juan County a collectionof islands in Puget Sound in the northwest cornerof Washington state. During the summer months,tourists, particularly bicycle enthusiasts, flock to Lopez due to its relatively flat topography and scenic

beauty. The island is mostly rural and residential,

with a small downtown area consisting of shops,restaurants, and other professional services companies [1].Lopez has a population of almost 2,800 that canswell to over 5,500 during peak tourist periods likethose around the 4th of July. Accounting for 16percent of San Juan Countys population, Lopezspopulation will grow by over 20 percent to surpass 3,400 by 2025 [2]. Lopezs median age of 56.8years is nearly a generation older than the nationalmedian age of 37.2 [3]. The population pyramid inFigure 1 illustrates older adults comprising a relatively large proportion of Lopezs population. Figure2 compares the percentage of population for theage categories of under 50, age 50 to 59, and age60 and over, for Lopez, San Juan County, Washington State, and nationally. Demographers expectSan Juan Countys seniors aged 65 and older toaccount for 38 percent of the county population by2020, roughly 2.5 times higher than the expectedstate percentage [4]. Seniors occupy an even larger

Figure 1:Age profile of Lopex Island.8

Figure 2:Age Category Comparison.

proportion of the population on Lopez, highlighting

the challenges Lopez will face meeting the needs ofa large growing senior population.According to the 2010 decadal US Census, LopezIsland had 3,249 housing units, more than half ofwhich (1,673) were seasonally vacant. By comparison, only 3 percent of all housing units in Washington state were seasonally vacant in 2010. Theaverage permanent resident household size is justunder two individuals. Owner-occupied residencesmake up about 75 percent of permanent residences on the island, while renter-occupied unitsaccount for the other 25 percent ([3] and [4]).Median household income on Lopez Island in 2010was $52,600, almost $5,000 less per householdthan the statewide figure of $57,200 [5]. A relatively high cost of living compared to the rest ofthe state weighs additionally on Lopezians alreadyrelatively low household income. For example, themedian home sales price on Lopez Island duringthe first quarter of 2012 was just over $350,000[6], while the median home sales price for the stateduring the same time was $208,300 [7]. In addition,Lopez Island residents regularly pay about $0.50more per gallon of gasoline on the island thanthey would on the mainland. Lopez Island may not

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

be poor by many measures, but neither is it free

of poverty [1]. According to the 2010 census, 21percent of Lopez Island families with children underthe age of 18 live below the US Census povertylevel (between about $15,000 and $20,000 per yearper family, depending on family size), comparedto 15 percent in Washington ([5] and [8]). Perhapseven more surprising, 51 percent of elementaryschool students on Lopez Island qualify for free orreduced lunch [9].The islands age profile, depicted in Figure 1, playsa significant role in determining income and wealthon the island. One quarter of the population earnsincome through non-social security retirementbenefits. The islands unemployment rate is under 4percent, but only about half of the population overthe age of 16 has steady employment comparedwith two thirds of the 16 and older population inthe state of Washington. This most likely resultsfrom the high number of retirees on Lopez Island[5].

...IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

The 21st century will see massive sociological,

economic, and environmental shifts on a globalscale not seen since the height of the Industrial

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

Revolution over 200 years ago. Islands are particularly vulnerable to shocks and shifts, whether on aglobal, regional, or island scale. How islands chooseto adapt to these new realities will determine theirability to thrive in a world of economic uncertainties, social transformations, and environmentalchange. It is in this context of global paradigm shiftsthat we situate our analysis for Lopez Island.These shifts are already underway. Take, for example, climate change. Sea levels have risen over8 inches since 1900 [10], as glaciers are meltingat a faster rate than anytime in the last 350 years[11]. Unprecedented ocean acidification a resultof chemical reactions between atmospheric CO2and seawater threatens thousands of species onwhich coastal societies depend for their livelihood[12]. The last five summers have seen the largestpolar ice melt since scientists first started collectingdata over 30 years ago [13]. The 10 hottest yearsfor the whole planet since 1880 have occurred inthe last 14 years [14]. A growing body of scientificevidence links the dramatic, worldwide increasein extreme weather events to the warming atmospheres ability to retain more moisture (see, forexample, The Weather of the Future, by Heidi Cullen, a widely respected climatologist).The world stands on the verge of global economicchange. Brazil, India, and China have emerged aseconomic powerhouses that can outcompete theUS and European Union on a number of metrics,from high-powered talent ([15]: Applied MaterialsCTO Mark Pinto relocates to China) to high-valueinvestment ([16]: Intel opens its Systems ResearchCenter in India) to high-technology infrastructure([17]: Brazil to roll out smart meters by the millions). The 2008 financial crisis in the United Statesbrought billions of dollars of losses to millions ofpeople around the world, upending the way policymakers and economists previously understood theeconomy (See, for example, Mind over Moneyby NOVA). The European debt crisis and concurrentrecessions and employment crises signaled to theworld that the once stable Eurozone stood on much

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

more unstable ground than previously imagined. A

spike in food commodity prices is sending millionsof people in both developed [18] and developing[19] countries into nutritional insecurity. OpaqueOPEC oil production and reserves statistics [20],combined with skyrocketing costs in oil exploration,production, and refining costs [21] in the rest of theworld have sent oil prices into peaks and troughsalong a steadily increasing trend.Communities are already mobilizing in the face ofthese global paradigm shifts. Over 500 eco-villages communities created for environmental sustainability, self-sufficiency, and resilience to externalshocks exist throughout the world today [22].Hundreds of college and university campuses havesigned carbon neutrality pledges [23]. Cities aroundthe world have set aggressive targets to becomegreen (see, for example: [24] and [25] and [26]).A new field of island-scale sustainability is gainingmomentum around the world (note, for example,Denmarks goal to be entirely reliant on renewableenergy by 2050, or the new Cradle to Cradle Islandsproject in the North Sea). These microcosms ofenvironmental sustainability may well prove to playnot only a key role in global sustainable development, but also in long-term resilience in the faceof dramatic change for communities in both developed and developing economies alike. For smallislands around the world, this type of sustainabletransformation can bring about a growth trajectorythat achieves resilience, adaptability, and minimalenvironmental impact.

GUIDED BY PRIOR RESEARCH

Extensive prior work on island- and communityscale sustainable transformations, from academiaas well as the public and private sectors, guided ouranalysis of Lopez Island. In particular, the authorsbenefited from local and regional analyses of LopezIsland and San Juan County. The Institute for Environmental Research and Educations Pacific Northwest Energy Independent Communities: A 10-year

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

10

Plan provided both data and insights into how key

systems particularly transportation and energy on Lopez Island could be strengthened to improvetheir resilience and environmental sustainability. In1998, San Juan Countys Community Developmentand Planning Department adopted a comprehensive plan for the countys development through2020, and it regularly updates this plan as new dataor new strategic plans become available. From thisplan, the authors gleaned valuable informationabout Lopez Island and San Juan County, includingdata and plans for sustainability, adaptability, andresilience already under way. Our report, in manyinstances, complements the ideas and development strategies found in San Juan Countys comprehensive plan.Several issue-specific San Juan County studiesprovided critical guidance to this report. First, thetransportation section of this report gained a considerable amount of inspiration and data from theSan Juan County Human Services TransportationPlan as it describes existing services and residentsneeds, especially senior, disabled, and low-incomecitizens. Second, the Agricultural Resources Committee of San Juan County published in 2011 a strategic plan for increasing the countys agriculturalindependence and resilience. The report, entitledGrowing our Future: An Agricultural Strategic Action Plan for San Juan County, advised the authors agriculture-related recommendations and,when applicable, background assessment of LopezIslands agriculture sector. Third, San Juan Countypublished in 2004 a water resources managementplan that identifies water as a limiting resource forthe county as a whole and islands like Lopez thatdo not have large, on-island, natural freshwatersources. This report places a similar importance onfresh water for Lopez Island, and draws ideas forhow best to manage this scarce resource from thecountys report, San Juan County Water ResourceManagement Plan. Finally, the Northwest Powerand Conservation Councils, Sixth NorthwestConservation and Electric Power Plan published in

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

2010 served as a foundation to the electricity and

heating section of this report, as many of its actionplans and data collection and analysis underpin ourassessment of Lopez Islands electricity system andour recommendations for action.While freshwater may be a limiting natural resourcefor Lopez Island requiring proactive management,energy may be the limiting man-made resource forthe island requiring an equally proactive management strategy. Even if someday the ultimate sources of energy on the island derive from natural andrenewable resources (e.g., the sun, tides, or wind),they require man-made processes to convert themto usable forms of energy (e.g., electricity, heating fuel, or transportation fuel). Throughout thisproject, the authors recognized the importance ofenergy on Lopez Island, including the security, cost,and emissions dimensions, among others. Threeauthors contributed significantly to our understanding of global energy imperatives that are relevantfor Lopez Island. Daniel Yergins two seminal works,The Prize and The Quest, offered a perspective onhow the world arrived at the energy system wehave today and where it may develop from here.Larry Lohmans article Energy Security for Whom?For What? published by Corner House in February2012 gives another excellent overview of the energy transformations that the world will undergo inthe coming century. Finally, James Williams articlein the November 2011 issue of Science informedour thoughts on the transition away from fossilfuels and the importance of energy system electrification in order to achieve significant reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions over the long term.The central focus of this report, however, are theisland-scale transformations needed to improveLopez Islands resilience, sustainability, and adaptability. This report treats its different subject areas transportation, agriculture and water, waste, andelectricity and heating as overlapping and interconnected systems on the island. We thereforeturned to a number of previous works on island- or

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

11

community-scale transformations, systems change,

and case studies. These include: The TransitionHandbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience by Robert Hopkins, which presents ideas andstrategies for creating resiliency and self-sufficiencyin local communities that range from the impractical to the innovative; the Center for EcosystemLiteracys Seven Lessons for Leaders in SystemsChange that gives clear recommendations forthose leading others through transformations ofestablished systems; Steve Melias The Road toSustainability: Transport and Car-Free Living inFreiburg, Germany, which describes the sustainable transformations that Freiburg, Germany,undertook over the last several years; and three reports from Lund Universitys International Institutefor Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) inSweden, Distributed Treasure: Island Economies,Energy Supply Models for Transition to Renewableand Locally Produced Energy, and Locally Sustainable Development: The Municipality of Tjorn,which each present different angles on small-scalecommunity transformations designed by the IIIEEgraduate program. The authors benefited greatlyfrom this body of research in the field of localizedsystems transformations, and incorporated theirlessons-learned, ideas, and key principles in thisreport.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF ANALYSIS

Lopez Island is connected physically, economically,

socially, and environmentally to the world aroundit. Therefore, any island-scale analysis will necessarily need a boundary. We set our boundary to bethe activities on Lopez Island or those directly resulting from activities on Lopez Island like ferry service to/from Lopez or electricity delivery to Lopez.This enables us to focus on what Lopezians can dobetween now and 2025 to bring about their ownsustainable transformations for Lopez Islands resilience. Recognizing the important role that state,county, and, in the case of electricity and heating,utility policies play in bringing about island-scale

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

transformations, we present broader recommendations outside the scope of Lopez-specific actions in

Appendix 1.This report is the outcome of a four-month research project conducted by 11 students at theMonterey Institute of International Studies inMonterey, CA. We structured the project in fourphases: background research, pre-departure preparations, on-island research, and post-trip follow upand analysis. During the first phase, the authorsconducted background research on Lopez Island,San Juan County, and previous studies and reportson island-scale sustainable transformations. Ourpre-departure preparations also included numerous teleconference interviews with local expertson our key subject areas. In mid-March, 2012, nineof the authors traveled to Lopez Island for a weeklong intensive research trip. During their stay, theyconducted numerous site visits, interviews, andmeetings, to gather as much information as possible in their limited time on the island. The authors cannot overstate the importance of this tripto their research and to their understanding of theunique characteristics of Lopez Island. Followingthe trip, the authors reconnected with key individuals with whom they wished to clarify or expand oninformation gathered on the island. This post-tripphase also included compiling all of the data andinformation that the authors had collected beforeand during the research trip.Before arriving on the island, the authors createdan online survey that they administered to Lopezresidents immediately following their research tripto the island. This survey asked Lopezians questions that pertained to each of this papers majorsections transportation, agriculture and water,waste, and electricity and heating. At the time ofwriting this report, 73 households had respondedto our survey. Because of the high likelihood that alarge majority of survey respondents were sustainably biased (e.g., bicycled more than the average Lopezian, ate more locally-sourced produce

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

12

than the average Lopezian, composted more than

the average Lopezian, etc.), the authors used thesurvey data primarily to give a qualitative perspective to a particular issue raised in the report, or tohighlight trends when they became apparent in thesurvey data. Therefore, the authors relied on interviews with local experts as well as official reportsfrom public and private entities to gather islandwide statistics or hard data.The authors of this report wished to create atransparent process throughout the course of thisproject. Therefore, they created a website, accessible to anyone, that introduces the project and theauthors, and presents overview information aboutthe project. The authors invited comments aboutthe project on the website from all interestedparties, and continue to monitor the website andrespond to comments when possible. The URL tothis website was distributed widely on the islandthrough the local newspaper and email listservs,and the authors include it here and encouragereaders of this report to visit it and post their comments. Readers may visit the projects websitehere: http://blogs.miis.edu/resilientcommunities/

REPORT ROADMAP

The authors divided their analysis of sustainable

transformations for Lopez Island into four distinctcategories: transportation; water and agriculture;waste; and electricity and heating. This report willreference synergies and overlaps among theseareas as they arise, but each of the four topic areaswill focus on its particular relevance to an issuethat cuts across one or both of the other categories. For example, the transportation section mightreference the transport of home heating fuel andpropane, while the electricity and heating sectionwould address how much of these fuels the islanduses.

practices on the island. Next, we identify risks and

problem areas associated with continuing on abusiness as usual trajectory. The third subsectiondiscusses potential solutions that address theserisks. The potential solutions fall into three categories, ordered as follows: 1) solutions for implementation; 2) solutions warranting further research;and 3) potential solutions that arose during ourresearch but should not be considered for implementation at this time. We weigh the pros andcons of each solution based on the following threemetrics: environmental sustainability, resilience,and acceptability on the island. We also addresscost when possible. We then give each potentialsolution a score of 1, 2, 3, or ? for each of thesemetrics (3 signifying the highest score, and ? implying a need for further research). For those solutionsthat we suggest implementing, we include potential strategies for doing so. We present broaderpolicy recommendations that fall outside the scopeof Lopez-specific actions (e.g., for county and statepolicymakers) in Appendix 1. A brief conclusionmarks the end of each of the papers major sections. The paper also features vignettes, includingquotes from Lopezians to accentuate an importantidea, case studies to highlight a best practice, andexpert insights to share local experts perspectiveson key issues.The paper concludes by summarizing all of theLopez-scale potential solutions those for implementation, those requiring further research, andthose not recommended for implementation in amatrix, with each potential solution along the vertical axis and its score on each of the three metricsalong the horizontal axis. We also note some wayswe could have improved our analysis, and notewhat broader implications and applications thisassessment might have on sustainable transformations for resilience elsewhere in the world.

Each section follows a similar structure. First, we

quantitatively and qualitatively describe current

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

13

Transportation

Early settlements on Lopez grew in clusters, each

having its own school, post office, and store,

reducing the need to travel across the island. Thissettlement pattern matched well with the earliestmodes of transportation on Lopez such as boats,horse riding, and walking. In the 1920s widespreadroad construction began on Lopez, leading to broadadoption of the automobile [27]. The arrival of theautomobile shaped modern-day Lopez and led tothe consolidation of schools and businesses. Zoninglaws such as the one stipulating one house per 5acres also led to a low-density housing pattern thatincreased dependence on motorized vehicles.Low population density and relative isolation asan island shape Lopezs transportation needs.Low population density has led to a dependenceon cars, and as an island, Lopez depends on theWashington State Ferry as the primary means ofmoving traffic between Lopez and the mainland.Envisioning a more robust transportation systemfor Lopez given these constraints is challenging butseveral opportunities exist to make incremental improvements, such as increasing the share of hybridvehicles, encouraging hitchhiking and ridesharing,

and building a community transit service. However,

to increase the overall sustainability and resilienceof Lopez, the most effective path to achieving lasting change appears to be closing as many loopsin resource flows (e.g., using waste products fromone process as inputs for another) as practical andadapting the economy to rely less on the movement of goods and people on and off the island.This means re-localizing the economic structure ofLopez as much as is practical.Below we describe the current state of transportation flows and services on Lopez, including land,air, and water transportation, and transportationfuel consumption. We gathered data from publicresources as well as interviews with Lopez residents and businesses. The online survey of Lopezresidents that we administered captures a snapshot of the transportation profile of a small sampleof residents, lending depth to our description ofthe islands current practices. We then presentand evaluate potential solutions, some of whichwe identified through direct feedback from Lopezresidents.

We describe the current state of land-based transportation on Lopez in three categories: personal, public, andcommercial. Personal transportation options include bicycling, walking, hitchhiking and carpooling. However,the dominant transportation mode remains personal motorized vehicle use. The island does not have a publictransportation system, except for the school bus system. Under commercial transportation we describe themovement of goods, resources, and waste, on and off the island.

Personal TransportationLopez households depend on driving for manytransportation needs. Lopez has over 3,200 housingunits, of which around 1,400 are occupied most ofthe year and around 1,700 are seasonally occupied[3]. More than 2,800 motorized vehicles is availableto these housing units [5]. While most householdsown at least one vehicle, between one and fourpercent of households do not own any. Accordingto the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 AmericanCommunity Survey data, 405 households had onevehicle and 932 households had two or more vehicles [5].The annual mileage driven by respondents of ouronline survey covered a wide range, from only a

few hundred miles last year to nearly 20,000 miles

last year. On average, respondents drove 6,374miles in their primary vehicle and 3,569 miles intheir secondary vehicle for a total of almost 10,000miles per household with two vehicles. Lopezresidents regularly pay about a $0.50 premium ongasoline purchased on island compared to gasoline purchased on the mainland. However, therespondents also indicated that nearly half of theirtotal miles driven occurred on the mainland. Correspondingly, respondents reported that just overhalf of their fuel purchases occurred on the mainland. If we assume an annual mileage of 10,000per household, use the US average fuel efficiencyof 22.6 miles per gallon [28], and an average price16

paid per gallon of $4.25 (half of fuel purchased

on mainland at $4.00, half on Lopez at $4.50), ahousehold on Lopez spends nearly $1,900 per yearon gasoline, or about $100 more per year than theidentical mainland household that purchases alltheir fuel on the mainland. Through interviews andresponses from our survey, we noted that someresidents keep a vehicle in Anacortes to avoid taking a vehicle on the ferry, thereby saving on ticketcost and avoiding wait time.Hitchhiking and carpooling currently serve as twoalternatives to traveling longer distances on Lopez.Many Lopez residents view hitchhiking as a common island practice, and an opportunity to socialize with neighbors. Michael Jennings, a long-timeLopez resident, commented that hitchhiking ispart of the culture, not only accepted, but also acommunity tradition. Hitchhiking works well mostof the year but a summertime surge of part timeresidents and tourists unfamiliar with the culturemake it more difficult to find a ride during the summer [27]. While the frequency of hitchhiking is difficult to measure, a sense of the extent of carpooling may be derived from U.S. Census data. Lopezresidents use about 700 vehicles for regular commutes and less than 80 involved carpooling. Thisrate of carpooling among commuters who use acar is statistically no different than the U.S. nationalrate [5]. To build upon the principles of hitchhikingand carpooling as transportation alternatives, SanJuan County launched a ridesharing system (http://www.sjrideshare.org/) in 2006/7, but due to a lackof funding, this ridesharing program has not yetexpanded to Lopez. Nevertheless, some residentsfeel that ridesharing programs are unnecessary because hitchhiking already serves that need. Regularhitchhiker, long-time Lopez resident, and 20-yeartransportation expert C.B. Hall remarked, All youneed is a thumb.Many residents ride bicycles to replace short cartrips or to exercise, making cycling a commonmode of transportation on Lopez, as. Residents

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

living within or near Lopez Village find cycling particularly convenient. Moreover, each summer manytourists come to Lopez specifically to cycle, and theannual Tour de Lopez attracts locals and touristsalike. However, for most of the island, cycling canbe unsafe due to narrow shoulders or the lack ofshoulders on the majority of roads including mainarteries. A dearth of cycling-oriented signage toindicate road hazards, directions, and traffic rulesfurther impedes safe cycling conditions. The summer season exacerbates this issue when the number of cyclists on the roads increases dramatically,occasionally leading to frustration among driverswhen large packs of cyclists impede traffic or ignoretraffic laws.The compact size of Lopez village makes walking tocomplete ones errands easy. However, most residents live too far away from key areas like the ferryterminal, parks, Lopez Village, and Lopez School tomake walking practical. Furthermore, the lack ofshoulders on many roads reduces pedestrian safety.Despite the distances, some residents express interest in improving both island pedestrian and cyclistaccess with a trail network. The existing trail network totals to 1.3 miles of road right-of-way trailslocated along Fisherman Bay Road, Lopez Road, andWeeks Road, a very limited trail network indeed[29]. Road right-of-way trails are adjacent to publicroads, about 4 to 5 feet wide, and ADA compliant where possible. The Lopez Community TrailsNetwork (LCTN), a group of Lopez residents, worksto improve island connectivity by creating andmaintaining a network of safe non-motorized trailsto benefit all community members [30]. KirmanTaylor of the LCTN explained that the LCTN owns noland, but they acquire public easements for building trails. This activity receives funding from privateorganizations like the San Juan Islands PreservationTrust, and public institutions like the San Juan County Land Bank. Taylor acknowledged that funding isnot the only challenge to expanding Lopezs trailnetwork. Many landowners express concern aboutgranting general public access through or alongside

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

17

their properties, although they willingly grant access to individuals who ask [31].

Public TransportationLow population density and correspondingly lowpotential ridership volume make it no surprise thatLopez does not have a public bus system. Thesecharacteristics also limit the feasibility of otherservices for community transit needs. The LopezSchool District bus system is the only regular busservice but can transport only students undercurrent regulations. For details on the school busfleet and its operations, see Appendix 2. The LopezSenior Center has one San Juan County-owned8-person van to take seniors to the mainland formedical appointments and other errands. Volunteer drivers provide the van service to about 15seniors on a regular basis, and the drivers typicallyneed a one-week lead time [32]. Many residentsare not aware that a taxi service exists on Lopez; itstruggles to build a viable business. Ruby Walker,owner of the taxi service for the past two years,believes Lopez needs a taxi, though she struggles toconnect demand to her service [33].Given these limited services, many residents viewpublic transportation on Lopez as an unmet need.Public meetings and resident surveys described inthe San Juan County Coordinated Human ServicesTransportation Plan of 2010 [4] identified greatestdemand by Lopez residents for the following typesof service:> Shuttle service between the ferry terminal andLopez village> Year-round small bus service islandwide> Subsidized taxi service for medical appointments and errands, serving low income seniors and mobility-constrained individuals> More frequent off-island Senior Center vantrips for these purposes> Allow broader use of the Senior Center vans

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

Such sentiments indicate a desire for public transit,

and we discuss later in this paper some potentialsolutions to meet the demand for a public transportation network to serve the aging populationas well as disabled and lower-income communitymembers.

Commercial TransportationThis section describes the movement of goods, resources, and waste, on and off the island. We find itimpossible to describe the flows for all businessesor public institutions, however we can present theflows for several key Lopez institutions, includingthe Lopez Village Market, the Transfer Station, theSewer District, Lopez Sand and Gravel, and the USpostal service. Food supply and waste managementdetails are addressed in their respective sectionslater in this paper, however this section describesthe transportation-related resource flows relevantto food supply and waste management.The Lopez Village Market (LVM) is a primary supplier of food, fuel, and other necessities on Lopez.Owner Aaron Dyes philosophy is to obtain whatever the customer demands. If the customer asksfor it, I will try to stock it. LVM shipping expensesaverage around $1,000 per week for two to fourshipments (usually one to two trucks of nonperishables and one to two trucks of perishables)from the mainland via the ferry. Non-produce itemscome from a distribution center in Seattle nearBoeing field. Produce items, averaging about 170cases per week, come from United Salad on themainland. The quantity doubles during the summer. Despite being the only large supermarket onLopez, LVM profit margin averages a modest 2 percent, sufficient to cover repairs and maintenance,and a summertime influx of tourists doubles salesvolumes and helps LVM recoup much of those costs[34].LVM also sells gasoline and diesel, averaging 450 to500 gallons per day during much of the year but increasing to about 600 to 700 gallons per day during

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

18

the summer months. Annual liquid fuel sales total

around 190,000 gallons. Diesel comprises abouttwo percent of this sales volume. Despite being oneof three gasoline stations on Lopez, this part of Mr.Dyes business operates at a loss. He maintains thissector of his business to meet a community need.Richardson Fuels, discussed later in this section,resupplies LVMs gasoline pumps [34].Two entities manage solid waste on Lopez, theLopez Transfer Station and San Juan SanitationCompany. San Juan County operates the LopezTransfer Station and handles nearly all residentialwaste. Most residents deliver solid waste to theTransfer Station themselves, usually while running errands in Lopez Village. The Transfer Stationaggregates solid waste in 40 cubic yard containers and ships it via the ferry to Orcas Island whereother services further aggregate it into 120 cubicyard intermodal (rail) containers and ship it via theferry to the mainland for final disposal. In 2011, theTransfer Station collected and shipped 432 shorttons of garbage and 291 short tons of comingledrecyclables from Lopez to Orcas. The shipments occur every few days, more often in the summer. SanJuan County has a long-term contract with Waste

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

Management to transport garbage to a landfill

near Arlington, Oregon, 350 miles away. Comingledrecyclables are destined for a Waste Managementfacility in Woodinville, near Seattle [35].San Juan Sanitation Company is the only entity allowed to provide curbside collection on Lopez. Theyserve only about 30 mostly commercial customers.Based on Orcas Island, they regularly send trucksto Lopez via the ferry for collections and the trucksoften return to Orcas less than full [35]. The shipment and processing of waste by both San JuanSanitation and Lopez Transfer Station account formuch of the cost in the existing solid waste management system. The Waste section of this papercovers further details on the waste managementinfrastructure.Lopez Sand & Gravel, a subsidiary of Buffum Brothers Farms, provides materials for construction onLopez Island and also accepts a significant amountof green waste. Lopez Sand & Gravel imports about7,000 to 8,000 cubic yards per year, on two bargetrips. Material and transportation costs per bargeof gravel total about $78,000. Lopez Sand & Gravelpurchases about 40,000 gallons of diesel per year

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

19

from Richardson Fuels to operate the business.

Their site receives a few trucks per day of customers dumping green waste or purchasing wood chipsand soil [36]. The Waste section of this paper further discusses Lopez Sand & Gravel operations.The Lopez Island Sewer District and septic tankcustomers use an independent contractor to transport solid waste from septic tanks. The contractor operates a 5,800-gallon truck to deliver septicsolid waste to the Sewer District for processing.Processing at the Sewer District facility significantlyreduces the volume of solid waste. The Sewer District pumps the remaining untreatable waste backinto the contractors truck for final shipment to amainland treatment plant. In the summer the trucktravels to the mainland weekly and in the wintertwice a month. Due to weight limitations on the

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

ferry, the truck transports only about 3,500 gallons

at a time [37].As for mail and package deliveries, the U.S. PostalService volume is usually less than a truckload perday [38]. UPS, Federal Express, and other commercial delivery services serve Lopez regularly but donot charge extra for the ferry crossing.

AIR TRANSPORTATION

Aviation has been an important part of travel to

and among the San Juan Islands since the 1940s.The Port of Lopez owns and operates Lopez Airportand receives federal and state funding for capitalimprovements. Lopez Airport is classified as a community service airport, but retains no staff, no onsite fuel, and no amenities. In 2010 the airport had18,250 enplanements, none of which were moni-

Marine transportation options for Lopezians include the Washington State Ferry (WSF), privatewatercraft, rentals, inter-island fast boat services,and water taxi services. Island Express and the SanJuan Island water taxi offer services to the San JuanIslands [44]. Residents that need to travel to small-

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

SOURCE: Port of Lopez

(http://www.portoflopez.com/index.htm)

er islands that WSF does not serve use informal

inter-island private boat services. These boats generally have a capacity of no more than 6 and typicalfares range from $30 for a one-way trip to as muchas $100 for a single passenger trip [45]. However,the vast majority of residents use the WSF to traveloff island.WSF ferry routes generally visit each of the serviced islands (Lopez, Shaw, Orcas, San Juan) in sequence on each sailing from Anacortes. The sailingschedule changes both seasonally and annually, depending on ship availability and in accordance withWSFs experiments to improve service. This createsdifficulties in coordinating with regional land transit like airport shuttles and public buses. Currently,no formal transportation services exist at the Lopezferry terminal. However, public buses and privateshuttles do serve the Anacortes terminal [46], buttheir departure and arrival times lack coordination

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

21

with ferry departures and arrivals. Examples of this

may be found by comparing the Spring 2012 WSFschedule and the Skagit Transit route schedule [46,47]. On average, 5 out of 6 westbound journeys toLopez require over an hour wait at the ferry terminal, while eastbound journeys from Lopez requirepassengers to wait about 25 minutes for the bus onmorning trips, and longer in the afternoon. Travelers between Anacortes and the I-5 corridor havethe added complication of transferring buses atMarchs Point [47]. Bellair Airporter Shuttle servesas another lack of timing coordination example:shuttle departures from Anacortes occur at least 50minutes after ferry arrival while shuttle arrivals atAnacortes occur more than one hour before ferrydeparture until mid afternoon [48].WSF maintains an island specific vehicle quota toensure that drivers from each island along the ferryroute have a chance to board the ferry. The quotaschange seasonally. Despite the quota system, many

residents experience unpredictable wait times from

almost none during the winter to as much as twelvehours during the peak summer season. The Lopezferry terminal lacks an online traffic camera, soresidents must call the terminal to get an estimateof wait time. Businesses on the other hand, can useWSFs reservation system for commercial traffic tocontrol their wait times [46]. WSF may make thereservation system available to non-commercialcustomers in the future.Some Lopez residents note that the pricing structure of WSF encourages drive-on passengers anddiscourages walk-on passengers; in other words,the ferry is too cheap for vehicles and too expensive for passengers. Table 1 (on the next page) illustrates a portion of the Winter 2012 price structure.While a limited number of free 72-hour parkingspots are available on a first-come, first-serve basis,typical parking rates at the Anacortes terminal are$10 for one day and $40 for seven days [46].

SOURCE: IBike USA/Canada

(http://ibike.org/ibike/salish/essay/5-San%20Juan%20Island.htm)

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

22

Price

TRANSPORTATION FUELS CONSUMPTION

Passenger type

All liquid fuels that Lopez residents consume must

be transported from the mainland by means of oneof two methods: either via barge service or via theWashington State Ferry. Combustible liquids (diesel, heating oil) may be transported on the ferrywhile flammable liquids (gasoline, propane) arenot allowed on the ferry so they must travel on thebarge service. Island Transporter, the only bargeservice in the area, regularly transports fuel tankertrucks with its charter landing craft service.

$12.05 Walk-on$14.05 Walk-on with bicycle$15.45 Motorcycle$26.15 Driver with up to 14 vehicle$29.00 Driver with up to 22 vehicle

TABLE 1: Selected WSF winter 2012 westbound single-use

full fares. SOURCE: Washington State Ferries

In 2011, the Anacortes-Lopez ferry segment recorded 150,348 vehicles, 106,924 vehicle passengers, and 37,194 foot passengers [49]. To gain abetter characterization of riders at the Lopez ferryterminal, we looked at data from a 2008 Washington State Transportation Commission survey onthe Anacortes/San Juans ferry route as a proxy.According to the survey, ridership varied significantly by season, increasing by 109 percent fromwinter to summer. About 90 percentage points ofthat increase resulted from growth in recreationalridership. Riders with recreation as the primary trippurpose comprised 34 percent of all riders in thewinter but 63 percent of all riders in the summer. Inthe summer 63 percent of passengers had recreation as the primary trip purpose [50].Based on the 2011 vehicle count above and thepercentages by trip purpose, if we assume thatnon-recreational riders are all Lopezians and recreation riders are all tourists, then Lopezians tookabout 70,000 ferry trips with vehicles in 2011. Ifthe number of households on Lopez is about 1,500,then each household averaged 3.9 ferry trips withvehicles per month in 2011. This estimate is probably a bit inflated since a certain percentage ofnon-recreation traffic is commercial traffic, likedelivery of goods to Lopez. Many of the Lopeziansthat responded to our online survey indicated thatthey ride the ferry no more than two or three timesper month while a few respondents said that theyride it several times per month.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

Lopez uses four categories of liquid fuels: gasoline,

diesel, propane, and heating oil. Gasoline and diesel satisfy motorized transportation needs as wellas some domestic usage like electric generators.Propane and heating oil primarily satisfy heatingneeds. One company, San Juan Propane, importspropane. In 2011, San Juan Propane imported321,870 gallons of propane to Lopez [51]. Assuming a tanker truck size of about 6,000 gallons, thisaverages to about one shipment per week.Richardson Fuels imports the remaining liquid fuelcategories and serves several other islands notserved by ferries in San Juan County. Lopez nativeRex Ritchie owns and operates Richardson Fuelwith a staff of one himself. Low sales volume andhigh fixed costs burden Richardson Fuel with highoperating costs the underlying reason behind the$0.50 price premium for on-island gasoline anddiesel retail purchases. Richardson Fuel maintainsa fleet of three trucks, a 2,300-gallon local deliverytruck, a 9,000-gallon gasoline tanker truck, and a9,800-gallon diesel tanker truck. The trucks alsodouble as fuel storage. Richardson Fuel suppliesthe three gas stations on Lopez, the Lopez VillageMarket, the un-staffed Weeks station near theLibrary, and Islandale Store at the southern end ofLopez [52].Richardson Fuel reports importing about 250,000gallons of gasoline per year, averaging about oneshipment per week and 100,000 gallons of die-

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

23

FIGURE 3: 2011 Estimates of Liquid Fuel Imports to Lopez

sel per year, averaging about two shipments per

month. Heating oil imports occur in winter only andaverage about 40,000 gallons per year. In recentyears, sales volume was flat or decreased slightly,likely due to the recession and increasing fuelefficiency [52]. Sales volume at the Lopez VillageMarket, however, indicates that diesel occupies asmall fraction of car and truck purchases, around 2percent [34]. The Lopez School District purchasesless than 6,000 gallons of diesel [53], Lopez Sandand Gravel accounts for about 40,000 gallons [36],and the rest of diesel imports goes towards othernon car or truck uses such as boating, excavation,and agriculture. Figure 3 below summarizes the estimates of liquid fuel that Lopez imported in 2011.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

Though residents have the convenience of purchasing fuel at one of the three local gas stations, manyLopez residents opt to purchase fuel on the mainland instead due to cheaper prices. Residents areallowed to transport small quantities of combustible liquids such as diesel on the State Ferry. Moreover, many residents regularly purchase vehicle fuelon the mainland. Respondents to our online surveyindicated that on average 54 percent of their gasoline purchases occurred on the mainland. Thoughwe cannot extrapolate on this data due to surveybias, suppose that we assume that this purchasingpattern reflects the wider Lopez community. Giventhat purchases on Lopez amount to around 250,000gallons per year according to Richardson Fuel sales,total fuel consumption would be around 500,000gallons per year, if Lopez residents purchase abouthalf of their fuel on the mainland.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

24

Community Transportation Options: Insights from Lopez Resident

Christopher Aiken, San Juan County Mobility ManagerIts been six months since I became San Juan

Countys first Mobility Manager. Since moving to

the island, my family and I have been welcomed toLopez with wide-open arms and have truly begunto feel like a part of the community fabric. In mytime here, I have been working with various agencies and groups to understand our transportationissues and expand our community transportationoptions.As I have come to know Lopez, my work has mademe particularly aware of the unique transportation issues and struggles of our seniors, disabled,veteran and low-income residents. Nearly half ofthe population of San Juan County falls into one ofthese categories. I remember seeing a wheelchairbound elderly woman travelling on one of thenarrow shoulders of a main road, and as I watched,I remember thinking: shes doing this because shehas tothere is literally no other way to get there,there should be room for her in our transportationsystem, and there should be better and safer traveloptions for our residents. I worry that seniors, thedisabled, veteran, low-income and non-driving residents are not getting an adequate transportationsystem currently, and that their needs are not wellrepresented in our local plans for the future.Roughly six months into my role as mobility manager, I am happy to say we are making some headway. San Juan County recently received a grantfrom the Washington State Department of Transportation that will bring a coordinated focus to ourunique transportation issues here in the islands.For Lopez, the grant will support the addition of awheelchair accessible van and the implementationof a voucher program for our most transportationvulnerable residents. This program will allow forvouchers to be used on a variety of transportationservices, including taxis, bicycles, paying voluntary

drivers, fixing broken vehicles, as well as for buying

gas. Well be conducting personalized transportation assistance to match our residents uniqueneeds with appropriate local providers.With that said, there is still more to do. San JuanCounty stands at a transportation crossroads: wehave a high proportion of aging citizens, a vastincome disparity gap between low and high incomeearners, and a large number of us do not or will nothave access to personal vehicles. We cannot usethe same auto-centric logic of the past to solve ourmulti-modal problems of the future, but we canwork together to chart a course towards a moreresilient one. I look forward to seeing the ideas thatthis project spurns, as Im sure they will help informthe ongoing evolution of community transportationsolutions here on Lopez.

25

POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS AND RISKS FACTORS

[transportation]After analyzing Lopez Islands unique characteristics and reviewing its current practices, we highlight belowseveral key risk areas that could pose problems for transportation on the island between 2012 and 2025. Thesefall into five categories: fuel price and supply, bottlenecks, population and demographics, climate change andthe environment, and disaster response.FUEL PRICE

A heavy reliance on gasoline- and diesel-powered

modes of transportation presents two risks toLopez Island between now and 2025. First, expertspredict that the price of gasoline and diesel will risesignificantly over the next 13 years. The US EnergyInformation Agency predicts that gasoline anddiesel prices could rise by between 2 and 3 percenteach year between now and 2025, but any number of supply-side shocks, like intensifying conflictin the Middle East, pipeline disruptions betweenCanada, the US, and Mexico, or European boycottson oil from Iran, among others, could lead to evenhigher prices by 2025. These year-over-year increases from 2-3 percent per year to perhaps 5 or6 percent per year would result in a 30-90 percentincrease in gasoline and diesel prices at the pumpby 2025, on Lopez Island and on the mainlandin 2025 compared with 2012 prices. If Lopezianscontinue to rely on gasoline- and diesel-poweredmodes of transportation as heavily as they do now,rising fuel prices will further increase the cost of living on Lopez Island, which, as noted in this reportsintroduction, is already high relative to the rest ofWashington. This can have a particularly deleterious effect on low-income households; according tothe Bureau of Transportation Statistics, US households in the lowest 20 percent income bracket canspend up to 42 percent of their annual income ontransportation costs [54]. Along with increasing thecost of personal transportation, rising fuel priceswould increase the cost of food, waste processing,shipping, and ferry services. Lastly, it is important tonote that vehicular travel comprises a large portionof Lopez Islands carbon footprint, which may pose

a real financial risk to Lopezians if the county, state,

or federal governments enact legislation that puts aprice on carbon.

FUEL SUPPLY

The second fuel-related risk that Lopez Island could

face if current practices are continued stems frompossible disruptions to supply. First, any delay ordisruption to the fuel barge service could createan immediate shortage of fuel on Lopez Island,particularly if current consumption rates continueor increase. Second, a heavy reliance on gasolineand diesel requires a reliance on fuel storage, yetfuel storage on the island is limited, and could bevulnerable to leaks or explosion from age-relateddegradation. And third, a single individual managesalmost all gasoline and diesel import and distribution on Lopez Island [52]. Heavy reliance on gasoline and diesel makes this single-point managementstructure particularly risky.

BOTTLENECKS

The next major risk area that we identified transportation bottlenecks stems from the islandscurrent reliance on two primary modes of transportation: personal vehicles and the ferry. Dependence on a personal vehicle creates a bottleneckat the household level. As long as the primaryvehicle functions properly or has access to the fuelit needs, this bottleneck does not pose a problem.But because a majority of households on LopezIsland rely on a personal vehicle as their primarymode of transportation, any interruption (e.g., car26

breakdown, fuel supply disruption) becomes particularly disruptive. Reliance on a single ferry servicepresents a second bottleneck that could pose a riskto Lopez Island through 2025. In the event that ferry service is disrupted, the current heavy relianceon the Washington State Ferry service would meansignificant inconvenience, cost, or even inaccessibility to vital supplies (in the case of food or medicalsupplies) for Lopezians.

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS

Significant demographic changes, namely population increase in San Juan County and a large andgrowing population of older Lopezians, also presentrisks to the Lopez Island transportation sector. Arapidly aging population could lack viable transportation options by 2025, particularly if a mechanismis not in place to expand the senior van usage orif some form of organized elderly transportationoptions do not exist. The aging population willneed more frequent visits to medical facilities offthe island, depending even more on the transportation bottlenecks listed above. In addition, SanJuan Countys population will likely increase by 30percent by 2025 [4]. This increase in population,if accompanied by the same rates of car ownership that Lopezians have today, could strain thealready crowded ferry service from island to islandand island to mainland. It could also pose risks forbicyclists on Lopez as even more cars will share theroad with bicycles. If cars purchased during thispopulation growth operate at similar efficiencyrates as they do today, then even more residentswould be at risk to gasoline or diesel price shocks particularly if the income disparity on Lopez Islandworsens or remains the same and carbon emissions from vehicle use would continue to rise.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE

ENVIRONMENT

Climate change and environmental shifts similarly

exacerbate Lopez Islands exposure to the aboverisks, from fuel price shocks and supply disruptions, to transportation bottlenecks, to adaptationto demographic changes, to disaster response.But a changing climate poses direct risks to LopezIslands transportation sector, as highlighted by a2012 report from the state of Washington, entitledImpacts of Climate Variability and Climate Changeon Transportation Systems and Infrastructure inthe Pacific Northwest. This report identifies specific transportation-related threats brought aboutby a changing climate. First, more severe weatherevents and predicted increased precipitation willstrain weather drainage systems, the majority ofwhich were built in the middle of the 20th century,and could expedite the erosion and degradationof roads, particularly those along the coast. Second, coastal roads and parking areas are at risk forerosion not only from rising sea levels, but alsoincreased precipitation and more severe storms.Third, small or individual boat ports or docks aresimilarly at risk. The ferry terminal on Lopez Island,while more robust than smaller boat ports, is ata similar risk to service disruption from extremeweather events.

DISASTER RESPONSE

Disasters, whether natural or man-made, can be

seen as black swan events for which Lopez Islandcannot plan in advance. Nonetheless, the otherrisks listed above would make disaster response whether it entails bringing assistance onto the island or evacuating residents off of the island evenmore difficult.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

27

Potential Solutions and Recommendations

[transportation]This section describes several solutions that could improve the transportation system on Lopez Island. Toformulate our ideas, we considered input from residents, best practices from similar communities, and existing research. We evaluate each solution on how well it could address current transportation needs of Lopezians and the issues described in the preceding section, within the context of environmental sustainability,resilience, acceptability to Lopezians, and cost, when available or approximate. For solutions that meet thesecriteria, we propose courses of action to start the implementation process. For solutions that show promisebut require further research, we identify next steps.

Recommend Go for Implementation:

1) Conduct a transportation infrastructure climate change vulnerability assessment2) Implement Lopez Rocks & Rolls an informal rideshare program3) Improve bicycling infrastructure4) Increase the share of hybrid vehicles on the islandRecommend Further Research:5) Build a community transit service by expanding the senior ride services6) Start a fuel import and distribution internship7) Implement vehicle-share programsRecommend Hold at this Time:(4) Increase the share of electric vehicles on the island8) Expand usage of school bus system for public transportation9) Implement a commercial freight coordination system10) Diversify community-scale marine transport

Climate change is a global reality with local consequences, to which Lopez Island is not immune. To address the risks identified in the aforementioned 2012 Washington State report, Lopez Island could undertakea climate change vulnerability assessment of its transportation infrastructure, including ports, storm drains,parking areas, coastal roads, and flood prone areas. Many frameworks already exist for climate change vulnerability assessments, and a cadre of volunteers could complete one for Lopez Island in two to four weekends.Lopezians would then submit the results to the appropriate authority, like the Washington State Department ofTransportation or San Juan Countys Public Works Department.PROS

CONS

> Clearly identifies threats to the islands resilience and

recommends action to address these threats> Frameworks for climate change vulnerability assessments already exist and could be easily tailored toLopez Island> Provides an opportunity to identify other transportation infrastructure problems that were overlooked orunnoticed> Vulnerability assessment requires relatively little timeand labor, and is essentially free (with the exceptionof transportation cost for volunteers and any suppliesneeded for the assessment)> Project management requires a dedicated individualor team of individuals to see it through completion,and Lopez Islands high population of retirees mayprovide the right demographic of wisdom, willpower,dedication, and timeenvironmentalsustainability

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: GoAlthough there are no direct environmental benefits to undertaking the vulnerability assessment,neither are there any damages, and the futurebenefits of adapting to climate change are key toLopezs long-term resilience. This important consideration, along with the other pros and cons identified above, lead the authors to recommend thatLopez Island complete a transportation infrastructure climate change vulnerability assessment.

Welcome -- Transportation --

> Ultimate solutions (i.e., fixing or improving infrastructure) are both costly and time consuming> Ultimate solutions may temporarily disrupt access orusability of certain components of the transportationrelated infrastructure> Successful implementation may require persistencein pushing action through bureaucracies in multiplecounty, state, or federal departments

Agriculture / Water

Implementation:The implementation of this project would requirethree phases: Prepare, Assess, and Submit. Duringthe preparation phase, the community assemblesa team of dedicated individuals to lead the project and see it through to its completion. The teamshould include Lopez Island residents who arefamiliar with the island and who, collectively, havean understanding of the islands geography, weather patterns, ports and marinas, coastal roads andparking areas, and stormwater runoff systems. The

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

29

next step in the preparation phase entails selecting

Pages 83-86 of the University of Washingtons Center for Science in the Earth System:<http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/snoveretalgb574ch8.pdf>,The Coastal-Marine Ecosystem-BasedManagement Tools Network: <http://ebmtoolsdatabase.org/resource/climatechange-vulnerability-assessment-and-adaptation-tools>; andThe US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate/conceptual_model62410.htm>, among others.

Once the project team selects a framework, they

determine which sites on Lopez Island to assessand assemble a team of volunteers to visit thesites. The preparation phase could take one to twomonths.

In the assessment phase, the team of volunteers

travels to the selected sites on Lopez and observes, records, photographs, videos, documents,and measures anything that may be useful to thevulnerability assessment. The project team wouldthen compile all of this information for use in thefinal assessment report. This phase could take between two and four weekends, depending on thedepth of analysis and number of volunteers andsites identified as vulnerable to climate change.The final phase entails completing the climatechange vulnerability assessment report andsubmitting it to the appropriate county, state, orfederal agency. This phase should also include theselection of an individual or team of individualswho will continue to seek the requested changes,improvements, or repairs from the appropriategovernment agency. This phase would then beongoing until the vulnerabilities are addressedand minimized.

IMPLEMENT LOPEZ ROCKS & ROLLS

(AN INFORMAL RIDESHARE PROGRAM)

Building on the hitchhiking is a community tradition idea, we propose that Lopez Island create a casualrideshare program that we call Lopez Rocks & Rolls. It promotes resilience and sustainability on Lopez, is acceptable to the community, and addresses some of the risks identified above. The program differs from hitchhiking in that it specifies designated pick-up sites with signage and includes advertising campaigns to increaseprogram awareness. It is less formal and more spontaneous than pre-arranging a rideshare/carshare programin an online venue like lopezrocks.org.Why bother creating a rideshare program when a strong hitchhiking culture seems to work? Adding a degreeof predictability and creating community awareness of the program will increase the comfort level or acceptability of hitchhiking even further, and, more importantly, it will give the system a feel of legitimacy andconsistency that would encourage tourists and part time residents to participate.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

30

Lopez Rocks and Rolls would be well suited for Lopezians making routine trips to and from common destinations like the ferry terminal, the village, or the high school, and for individuals like Liza Michaelson, co-founderof sjRIDESHARE, who enjoy meeting fellow residents through shared transportation. We propose basing thesystem on the principles of sjRIDESHARE, but adapting it to match the uniqueness of Lopez and requiringminimal funding. Pick-up site selection would be prioritized by transportation hot-spots like LVM, the ferryterminal, and the high school, and by areas that require no additional engineering (i.e., safe pull out areas thatalready exist). This avoids road widening and water diversion costs, which can be as much as $10,000 per site[55]. Signage need not be the conventional metal post and panel, but instead could be something as simple,yet visible, as a brightly painted rock with a unique logo. Preserving traffic safety for both riders and driversremains the top priority so techniques such as sight distance analysis must be employed during pick-up siteselection and design [56].PROS

Average Cost of Single Occupancy Vehicle

Commuting in the U.S.:Daily. . . . .$16.65Weekly. . .$83.25

To illustrate the potential savings that can be realized with

broader participation in Lopez Rocks & Rolls, we presentdata on carpooling as a proxy for ridesharing benefits.According to the Volpe Center automobile commutingcost calculation, the annual cost to commute alone in apersonal vehicle totals nearly $4,000, assuming averagefuel cost of $3.00/gallon (fuel prices at the time of writingof this paper are significantly higher than this). Replacingall those one-person commutes with a 2-person carpoolcould result in as much as $1,466 in savings. Ridesharing isnot the same as carpooling, however, and riders would bethe primary financial beneficiary unless drivers acceptedcash in exchange for giving a ride, a concept, Liza Michaelson notes, that Islanders are hesitant to accept.

> Requires shift in behavior of Lopezians, for example, to

let go of independence of personal vehicle> Creates potential hazard at pick up sites due to increased pedestrian traffic and vehicles pulling in andout of road> May require funding to develop some pick up sites> May require bureaucratic clearance to install signageand create pick-up sites

Assemble volunteers for site assessment

- Identify sites (can start with site assessment reportsfrom sjRIDESHARE)- Evaluate traffic safety and perform sight distanceanalysis at each site

>

Assemble volunteers to develop signage (potential volunteers could be artists or high school students). Signageneed not be the conventional post and panel it couldbe a large, brightly painted rock with a characteristic logo but it should be standardized.

>

Install signage at designated pick-up sites

PHASE II: Program promotion /

advertisement>

Assemble volunteers to advertise the program

- Advertise by word of mouth- Create a website, perhaps developed as a highschool project, to provide basic information likewhat the program entails, how it works, and mapsof pick-up sites- Advertise through local newspapers like IslandsWeekly and local websites like lopezrocks.org

PHASE III: Other promotional activities / programs

>

Promote an informal hitch-a-ride or pick-up-a-hitchhiker day once a month

>

Mobilize youth, e.g. high school students, through

creative incentives to reduce solo driving by high schoolstudents (Proposals here require piloting to assess theirefficacy in achieving goal)- Reward students for lowering transportation carbon footprint (bonus: students learn how to makecarbon footprint calculations)- Reserve some prime parking spaces at the highschool for students who carpool, via Lopez Rocks &Rolls or otherwise

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

32

sjRIDESHARE PROGRAMEnvisioned by Liza Michaelsona San Juan Countyresidentthrough her international travel experience, sjRIDESHARE program was established in2006 to provide sustainable local transportationsolutions to the inhabitants of the County and toput public back in public transportation. Theprogram roughly replicates a similar project GOGeronimo of Marin County, California that offeredsafe roadside stops, where riders and car driverscan safely connect, along a 20-mile stretch of theSir Francis Drake boulevard.The distinct feature of the sjRIDESHARE programrests on its simple yet visually authentic sign asshown in the figure above. The San Juan CountyCouncil as well as the town council for the Town ofFriday Harbor both voted unanimously to approvethe program and to pay to create and install thesigns. There is one at every exit, totalling 5 signs inthe town. Ms. Michaelson and her team avoidedthe engineering overheads born out of road widening for safe car pullouts by intelligently siting thepickup locations. The signs are installed in sites thatmeet the strict safety criteria, which do not requireadditional engineering.The sjRIDESHARE program has successfully installed22 pickup location signs in San Juan County, nineare pending, and over 15 are under consideration.Ms. Michaelson notes that the biggest challengefor the success of the program is convincing peopleto use it, as people are addicted to their cars. Sheforesees more islanders making use of the programin the future as the fuel prices continue to rise.Indeed, I use the Rideshare as my primary modeof transportation to and from town daily, says Ms.Michaelson.Local artist Anne Sheridan helped create theprogram, designed the logo and built the website,www.sjrideshare.org.

33

IMPROVE BICYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE

Cycling, especially when it can replace motorized vehicle trips, promotes resilience by reducing fuel consumption and motorized vehicle dependence, benefits the environment by reducing vehicle emissions, enhanceshealth, and is well accepted in the community. However, safety concerns such as narrow/no shoulders on mostroads and insufficient signage constrain wider use of cycling to replace vehicle trips. We suggest three actionsto address these issues. First, Lopez Island could widen the shoulders of the main roads such as Port Stanley,Center Road, Fisherman Bay Road, and Mud Bay Road, all of which receive substantial bicycle traffic, especiallyduring the summer months. Second, Lopez Island could create more pathways that connect key locations suchas Lopez School and Lopez Village. Third, Lopez Island could deploy more signage to indicate road hazards, givedirections, and promote traffic safety and road sharing between cyclists and drivers.PROS

To quantify potential benefits of increased cycling in the community, we present a cost-benefit

analysis conducted by Dr. Thomas Gotschi in 2011for Portland, Oregon. His analysis compared andcalculated the cost of bicycle infrastructure investment from 1990 to 2040 with health care cost savings, value of statistical lives (reduction in mortality resulting from bicycling), and fuel cost savings[57]. He calculated that the benefit-cost ratios forhealth care and fuel savings are between 3.8 and

Welcome -- Transportation --

> Widening road shoulders is expensive

> Possible resistance from property owners along roadstargeted for widening> Trail expansions require construction and maintenanceSafety education requires personnel and classroom> materials, all with a potentially high cost for a schoolsystem that already has a tight budget> Signage may require bureaucratic permission

Agriculture / Water

1.2 to 1, and an order of magnitude larger when

value of statistical lives is used. In other words,every $1 invested on bicycle infrastructure willprovide a return (benefit) of between $1.2 and $3.8in combined health care and fuel cost savings, andmuch more if factoring in reduced mortality resulting from bicycling [57]. To arrive at this conclusion,he used the conceptual framework as shown in thefigure on the next page.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

34

Figure 4: Conceptual framework of

the cost-benefit analysis(not including benefits of fuel savings)Source: [57]

Recommendation: GOWe think the clear benefits of increased cyclingthat improved infrastructure will justify the extraeffort it may take to secure funding, negotiate withproperty owners, and navigate county bureaucracy.We therefore recommend the community make improvements to cycling infrastructure on Lopez.Implementation:San Juan County Public Works completed a 1.7-mileshoulder widening and drainage improvement project along Fisherman Bay Road about two years ago.The project required the acquisition of permanenteasement for road right-of-way from 24 propertyowners and road construction agreements from 19other owners along the road [58]. The project metconsiderable resistance from local residents at thetime [1].We recognize that obtaining funding as well aspotential resistance from property owners maybecome obstacles to road shoulder widening andbicycle route/trail development projects. Shouldthe community pursue these projects, they couldassemble a team of dedicated volunteers (likelybicycle enthusiasts) to explore county, state, andfederal funding options, conduct site assessments,and work with property owners and the county toacquire public easements. The team could be subdivided into engineering assessment and financialassessment groups. The former will study, assessand prioritize sites based on safety criteria, the latter will submit grant proposals, allocate funds, andnavigate legal requirements. These projects likely

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

require sustained long-term commitment to see

them through completion.Deploying more signage to indicate road hazards,give directions, and promote traffic safety and roadsharing between cyclists and drivers, however,could be realized with modest funding and effort.The biggest challenge may be navigating countybureaucracy to legally install signage. We suggestthe following steps:1) Conduct a needs assessment:> Assemble volunteers to identify sites andtype of desired signage, with highest priority to safety> Develop a Bicycle Master Plan, a guide forcycling on Lopez> Prioritize high traffic zones and intersections> Improve and maintain signs at existing sites> Obtain permission from county forsignage installation2) Calculate costs and obtain funding:According to the North Central Texas Council ofGovernments (NCTCOG), the estimated cost ofa sign including installation ranges from $150$200 [59]. Similarly, the District of ColumbiaDepartment of Transportation estimates that ittakes of a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) to plan itssigned bicycle route network [60]. Dependingon county requirements, signage could beconstructed from wood or even waste material, instead of ordering conventional posts andpanels.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

35

3) Install signage:Assemble workers and volunteers to construct,install, and maintain signage (potential volunteers could be artists or high school students).

INCREASE THE SHARE OF HYBRID OR ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON THE ISLAND

A cursory search of the Internet reveals an extensive list of pros and cons regarding both fully electric vehiclesand hybrid vehicles compared to gasoline vehicles. Here we present increasing the share of hybrid or all-electric vehicles on Lopez Island as a possible solution to some of the key risks identified above.To estimate the total lifetime cost of ownership of hybrid, all-electric, and conventional vehicles, we displaybelow the results from University of Minnesota instructor Douglas Tiffanys free online calculator [61]. Thefollowing table details a comparison of electric, hybrid and conventional vehicle models available in 2012. Theanalysis assumed a $5,000 down payment on a 60 month loan with 5 percent interest, 10,000 miles driven peryear, a 15 year vehicle lifetime, and a 6 percent personal discount rate (Vehicle data from [61], [62], [63], [64]).Table 2: Cost Comparison of Conventional, Hybrid, and Electric VehiclesToyota Matrix L(conventional)

> Creates more dependence on OPALCOs imports of

electricity from the mainland (OPALCO is the utilitycompany that provides electricity to Lopez)> Current rate of renewables adoption may not be ableto keep up with the extra load of expanded electricvehicle charging> Likely to have a higher upfront cost than gasolinevehicles> Limited range on a single charge> Long recharging time, which can decrease householdtransportation flexibility and independence> Battery lifetime is typically shorter than vehicle lifetime> Requires specialized technicians and replacementparts> Existing models do not have large hauling capacitycultural

Electric Recommendation: HOLD

Hybrid Recommendation: GO

Welcome -- Transportation --

> Likely to have a higher upfront cost than gasoline

vehicles> Requires specialized technician skills and replacementparts> Hauling capacity in existing models occurs only whenthe engine is running on gasoline alone, and not acombination of battery and gasoline or battery only,thereby nullifying some of the hybrid benefits whilehauling or towing

Agriculture / Water

We recommend increasing the share of hybrid vehicles on Lopez Island. While hybrids have a higherupfront cost, they have a lower lifetime operatingcost, particularly as gasoline prices continue to

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

37

rise. Hybrids also do not have the range limitations

of all-electric vehicles, and they can dramaticallyincrease the time between refueling as comparedto a conventional vehicle. At the household level,hybrids preserve mobility independence, reduceoil dependence and its inherent risks, and avoid replacing oil dependence with electricity dependencefor household transportation.This report also recommends that when companiesor organizations on Lopez Island decide to buy anew light- or medium-duty vehicle (e.g., cars, vans,pickup trucks, SUVs, etc.), they purchase a hybrid.Most vehicle manufacturers make hybrid models oftheir light- and medium-duty vehicles that offer thesame or similar performance with greatly improvedfuel efficiency. As noted in the pro/con analysis ofthis recommendation, the fuel efficiency gains during hauling or towing may not be significant, butfuel efficiency gains during all other times would

likely be substantial and lead to a relatively short

payback period for the comparatively high upfrontcost.

Implementation:Increasing the share of hybrid vehicles on LopezIsland serves as an excellent example of an actionthat Lopezians can take between now and 2025 tobe more resilient, more environmentally sustainable, and maintain their unique culture and traditions. When an individual, a household, a business,or an organization decides to purchase a vehicle,we recommend they use lifetime cost calculation tools such as the one used to produce Table2 above to inform their decision about what kindof vehicle to purchase. Lifetime cost calculationsas well as a broader assessment of fuel supply andprice risks provide more accurate estimates of future costs and benefits than simple payback periodcalculations (payback period = upfront cost / annualsavings).

BUILD A COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICE BY EXPANDING THE SENIOR RIDE SERVICES

A common theme we found through research of San Juan County [4] and interviews with Lopez residents isa strong demand for public transportation services. Lopezs lack of public transportation options affects allresidents and particularly the young, the elderly, those with low incomes, and the disabled. The county Human Services Transportation Plan published in 2010 concluded that there was strong demand for a regularlyscheduled shuttle service for the entire island, and residents thought the senior van service should be madeavailable to the general public [4]. Here we propose developing a community transit service integrating theseelements. The service would leverage existing vehicle inventory such as the Senior Center van, be scheduledyear-round, and have a fixed route with several pick-up spots around Lopez, including Lopez Village, the ferryterminal, and the school. To accommodate the spread-out structure of the Lopez community, this serviceshould also offer the flexibility to deviate from the fixed route on-demand. The table below details the prosand cons of such a service.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

38

PROS

CONS

> Accessible to all residents

> Reduces the number of drivers on the road, andmiles driven per person> Reduces air pollution like particulates and greenhouse gases> Increases island connectivity> Provides a valuable, low-cost alternative to individual> vehicle travel, reducing the impact of rising fuel costsIncreases the mobility of youth, seniors, the disabled,> and those with low incomesLowers the number of non-emergency calls to 911 *>*Dialing 911 is often the preferred choice for nonemergency care simply because no other alternativeexists [4].environmentalsustainability

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: RESEARCHWhile estimating cost for this option presentsdifficulties, we recognize that this solution couldpresent funding issues. Public financing of thisservice could be obtained from a variety of specialstate grants, rural transportation grants, or otherfederal funding sources. San Juan County has aproven track record of obtaining funding from public sources for transportation initiatives includinga Washington Department of Transportation grantto replace Senior Center vans on each of the threemajor islands of the county with wheelchair accessible vehicles [65]. Funding for ongoing operationscould be supplemented with a fare structure thatcharged a higher fare for non-residents of Lopezand a reduced fare for Lopez residents. The higherfare that tourists and other non-residents wouldpay could cover free rides for certain classes of riders such as seniors and the disabled.Areas of Further Research:Recognizing the strong positive impacts of a community van service and a clear local demand for

this transportation option, we propose further

research on this potential solutions overall viabilitythat Lopezians can address before moving forwardwith this important initiative.To determine the cultural acceptability and overall viability of this potential solution, Lopeziansshould first determine demand, profit and costestimates, as well as possible pricing schedulesfor expanding the senior ride program to create acommunity transit service. Additionally, we offerthe questions on the following page as a guide toLopezians to make their viability assessment of thisprogram.Generally, Lopez residents have fewer transportation choices than either San Juan and Orcas islands,both of which have summer shuttle buses andlimited taxi services. Creation of the communityvan service would provide an affordable and reliable transportation option for residents that enablethem to be mobile in times of emergency and intheir daily lives.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

39

Schedule information:> What are peak travel times on Lopez?> What are the key destinations during peaktime?> How frequently should shuttle/vans travelthe island?> Should the schedule coordinate with theferry service or off-island modes of transportation?> Should the service run on a standardized orflexible schedule?Mobility Coordinator:> Should Lopez Island hire a mobility coordinator to oversee this transportation service?If so:> Where will the mobility coordinator belocated?> How will the mobility coordinator bereached? By phone and/or email?> Will the mobility coordinator be a volunteeror paid staff?> Who will provide training/ pay/ reimbursement to the mobility coordinator?

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

Van Numbers and Operation:

>>>>>

How many vans are available?

Can the Lopez school vans and the seniorvans be utilized?How many vans should be in service?What should the pay structure be for vandrivers?Would a volunteer van service work efficiently?How should van drivers be trained and certified? Who will provide the training?Would vans be a more affordable optionthan taxi vouchers?

Logistics:>>>>>

-- Waste --

How should pick-up points be identified?

Who should pay for the service? Everyone?Everyone but seniors?How much should be charged? What will bethe method of collection?Where will the vans be based? Who willhandle the maintenance and upkeep?Who will receive the profits?

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

40

START A FUEL IMPORT AND DISTRIBUTION INTERNSHIP

As the Transportation sections Potential Risk Factors and Problem Areas noted, a single individual (Rex Ritchie,the owner/operator of Richardson Fuels) manages and makes possible nearly all fuel import and distributionon Lopez Island. This single-point management structure could pose a risk to the long-term resilience of LopezIslands fuel supply if anything should happen to disrupt Mr. Ritchies operations. This recommendation entailsRichardson Fuel taking on a summer intern from the local high school to document its business practices andcontacts, creating an operations manual that could be used in the event something were to happen to Mr.Ritchie or his current operations.

PROS

CONS

> Establishes resilience to the import and distribution

of fuel to Lopez Island> Provides a high school student with a valuable learning opportunity> Could reveal areas of improvement or best practicesto share with respect to Richardson Fuels operations

> Requires the owner/operator of Richardson Fuel to

take on the responsibility of managing an intern> Would likely require Richardson Fuel to reveal potentially proprietary information in order to create theoperations manual

Recommendation: RESEARCHWe recognize the importance of this solution, oranother like it, to address the single point fuelsupply management risk on Lopez Island, even if itdoes not have a direct environmental sustainabilityimpact per se, and therefore propose it as a solution that warrants further research.Areas of Further Research:Significant acceptability questions exist thatLopezians and Mr. Ritchie would need to answerbefore implementing this solution. In particular,how amenable would Mr. Ritchie be to taking ona summer intern? In addition, how open would hebe to creating an operations manual of his currentbusiness practices and contacts that could be usedto continue his business in the event he was nolonger able to do so?

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

41

IMPLEMENT VEHICLE-SHARE PROGRAMS

At least two instances of organized vehicle sharing programs (i.e., a single vehicle owned and used by multipleindividuals, or owned by a single organization and used by multiple individuals) have existed in the past onLopez Island. Both involved shared ownership of a single car, with an organized way to schedule access andarrange fuel payments. However, both of these car share programs are no longer operational one community auctioned the shared vehicle to raise money for another project and the other programs shared vehiclebecame the primary vehicle for a Lopez resident at college. This proposal entails reinstating organized vehiclesharing programs in communities around Lopez Island.CONS

PROS> Provides a low-cost transportation option to community residents> All future users share higher upfront cost of vehicle> Reduces individual household dependence on asingle vehicle> Promotes community cohesion and ownership of ashared asset> Provides an affordable way to increase ridership ofhybrid vehicles if the vehicles purchased for theseprograms are hybridsenvironmentalsustainability

unknown

resilience &

cultural

adaptability

acceptability

Recommendation: RESEARCHAt first glance, a vehicle share program seems like agreat option for communities around Lopez Islandto give another transportation option to their residents. For example, a shared pickup truck or SUVcould provide moving and hauling capabilities tohouseholds who cannot afford to buy this type ofvehicle. In addition, programs like this have alreadyexisted on Lopez Island and are successful elsewhere around the world (e.g., Zipcar). In addition,it provides an affordable way to give communityresidents access to a hybrid vehicle, thereby reducing the negative environmental impacts of relyingon conventional vehicles and reducing householdexposure to oil price and supply risks

Welcome -- Transportation --

> Difficult to ensure long-term availability of car (as

evidenced by two previous car sharing programs onLopez Island)> Requires honesty and integrity of all users to preventfree riders> Potential unfairness in adding new people to the program who did not share in the initial cost of the vehicle> Requires coordination of liability, vehicle maintenance,fuel purchases, and vehicle access

Agriculture / Water

unknown

Areas of Further Research:

Before communities on Lopez Island implement thisrecommendation, they should first consider severalchallenges. How do communities raise money forthe purchase of a shared vehicle, and what type ofvehicle should they purchase? How do new community members, or those who did not share in theinitial cost of the vehicle, join the car share program? How should communities coordinate vehicleaccess, vehicle maintenance, liability and insurance, and fuel costs? The use of an online platformfor coordinating vehicle access seems like a logical approach, but that might discriminate againstseniors or other non-Internet users. If communitiesdecide to purchase a hybrid vehicle and they canimplement a program that answers these basic butfundamental questions, then we recommend Lopezians implement this recommendation.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

42

EXPAND USAGE OF SCHOOL BUS SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC

TRANSPORTATION

The next potential solution would expand the school bus system to become a public transportation system.The school has three vans that are rarely used outside of school hours, primarily because of lack of fundingand county regulations that permit only students as passengers on school buses and vans. However, someresidents have called for maximizing the utility of school vans by including them as part of a community transitsystem, serving the transportation needs of not just students and the elderly, but the general population. Theadded cost of labor and operation of these vans may be offset by the benefits of maximizing use of these assets and providing a valuable service to the community by replacing single car trips.CONS

PROS> Maximizes the utility of the vehicles> Provides viable transportation option for the LopezIsland, especially for elderly and needy individualsalong with students (for extra curricular activities)> Strengthens social cohesion among different generations> Creates job opportunities> Potentially provides additional financial assistancethat the school needs for extra curricular activities(from fares for van service)

environmentalsustainability

> Difficult to leverage funding since the government

funds the school van service> Coordination challenge to serve students and thegeneral public> Navigating different government agencies that all regulate some aspect of the consolidated programSchool risks losing state funds> Washington State law only allows students, bus driver,and bus monitors on school vans and buses> Must address Drivers Union issues due to schedulechanges> The school van might not meet the standards set bythe American Disabilities Act

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: HOLDWhile it may make practical sense to maximize useof school vans, the coordination and bureaucracychallenges are daunting. Based on the above prosand cons, we do not recommend trying to integrateschool vans into a community transit system at thistime.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

43

IMPLEMENT A COMMERCIAL FREIGHT COORDINATION SYSTEM

As this report notes earlier, Lopez Island relies on a relatively small number of companies to transport themajority of its commercial freight (e.g., construction materials, store inventories, etc.). Transportation from themainland to Lopez Island adds a considerable cost to some items, especially if the shipping trucks, containers,and crates return to the mainland empty. This round trip for one-way deliveries imposes a negative impact onthe environment, and exposes Lopezians to potential oil price shocks. One way to minimize this cost, risk exposure, and environmental harm would be to create a coordination system for commercial freight. This systemwould limit the number of empty trucks and containers returning to the island after making their deliveries byallowing goods on Lopez Island needing to be shipped to the mainland to travel back in the same trucks, crates,and containers that previously brought deliveries to Lopez.CONS

PROS> Improves efficiency of goods transportation for bothmainland and on-island distributors and receivers> Once a system is in place, it decreases cost of transporting goods to and from Lopez Island since roundtrips for one-way deliveries are now round trips fortwo-way deliveries> Decreases the emissions per unit shipped> Limits exposure to oil price shocks since the fuel costof transport would be shared by two separate shipping/receiving entities

environmentalsustainability

> Not resilient to service disruptions since two sets of

shippers and receivers would be affected instead ofjust one> Requires considerable coordination of deliveries to theisland and shipments to the mainland> Could decrease the shipping and inventory flexibilityfor both on-island and off-island shippers and receivers> Would likely require a salaried individual to coordinatedeliveries and shipments, along with other startup andoverhead costs for which no single entity or group ofcompanies would likely be willing to support financially

resilience &

cultural

adaptability

acceptability

Recommendation: HOLDBased on a careful consideration of the pros andcons of this potential solution, weighed against itsenvironmental sustainability, long-term resilience,and acceptability on the island, the authors do notrecommend implementing the commercial freightcoordination system.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

44

10

DIVERSIFYING COMMUNITY-SCALE MARINE TRANSPORT

For many Lopez residents, the WSF serves as the only practical means of getting on and off island. To decreasethe risk of disruption from interruptions in ferry service, several residents we spoke to suggested developingalternatives to the ferry system, to increase both resilience and environmental sustainability.

PERSPECTIVES FROM RESIDENTS OF LOPEZ

We visited Lopez for one week in March 2012 and gained insight into the Lopezian perspective on a varietyof issues. Here are a sample of opinions from Lopezians on transportation-related issues that informed ourresearch.

Ferry TalesFerry terminal manager Shelley Clark remarked that the lack of connectivity to regional transit and long andunpredictable wait times for vehicles to embark on the ferry are the two biggest complaints about the WSF byLopezians. Regarding transit connectivity, Lopez resident Randall Waugh commented on our blog, What abouta bus from the ferry terminal to/from the Amtrak train station in Mt. Vernon, especially if the ferry/bus/trainschedule were sensibly organized? Shelley Clark also noted that many Lopezians oppose an expanded reservation system for all riders. Such a system benefits mainly tourists, while Lopezians feel like the state would beforcing Lopez to use a system inappropriate to the islands needs.

Oil PressureWe gained some valuable perspective on transportation when we interviewed owner and operator of Richardson Fuels, Rex Ritchie. Born and raised on Lopez, Mr. Ritchie has been delivering fuel for most of his workinglife, and doing it alone. Lopez is lucky to have experienced very few disruptions in its fuel supply given thatonly one person delivers most of Lopezs liquid fuel needs. When he retires, someone else will have to takeover, and that someone will probably hire a staff which would surely increase the cost of providing service. Mr.Ritchie noted that rising fuel prices present a substantial risk to consumers on Lopez. He explained that a largeproportion of the high price of oil comes from widespread trading in oil futures.Biker BewareOn bicycling, we heard a common refrain from students of the Lopez School District that cycling is not very safedue to narrow or lack of shoulders on most roads and there is frequent frustration among drivers when thesummer season brings a large influx of cycling tourists to the island. School superintendent Bill Evans is an avidcyclist himself yet sympathizes with driver complaints. He suggests that a potential solution may be as simpleas better signage to direct bicycle tourists, and encourage road sharing and respect for traffic laws. At the sametime, he and many of his students feel it is important to widen road shoulders and build bicycle lanes to improve safety.

the transportation system on Lopez, the islands

resilience and environmental sustainability depend on it. Rising oil prices, relatively high incomeinequality, an aging population, transportationbottlenecks and single-point import/distributionmanagement, among other threats and risk factorsnoted earlier, emphasize the need for change.This section covered a number of specific, incremental solutions to improve the transportationsystem on Lopez Island. Solutions identified forexpedited implementation include completing aclimate change vulnerability assessment, increasingthe share of hybrid vehicles on the island, creating an informal ride share system, and improvingbicycling-related infrastructure. Others we identified as requiring further research before implementation; in particular, creating a community transitservice on Lopez Island would have large potentialbenefits and would meet a documented demand,but significant information gaps stand between thispotential solution and its implementation.

Moving beyond these incremental solutions to

further increase environmental sustainability andisland-wide resilience in the transportation sector,while respecting island culture and tradition, requires an overall decrease in the reliance on transportation in the first place. In order to make thispossible, substantial changes would need to happen in transportation both on and off the island. Toreduce reliance on transportation on Lopez Island,structural changes like more clustered communitieswould need to occur. Reducing reliance on offisland transportation would require changes in keysectors of the economy in particular, food, agriculture, and waste. In this regard, closing resourceloops, increasing local production of food and othergoods, and reducing exported solid waste in general would localize economic activity and decreaseLopez Islands exposure to transportation-relatedrisks. The next two sections of the paper, whichfocus on agriculture, water, and waste, addressessome of these key transformations.

47

Agricultureand. W a t e r

Historically, Lopez Island has been a net exporter

of food, especially under the management of the

native population before the arrival of Europeans.In the 19th and early 20th cennturies potato farming and orchards prevailed on the island until distribution problems made those industries economi-

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

cally unviable. Today, pasture-raised meat, haying,

and grain farming are the most popular agriculturalactivities. Lopezians cultivate fruits, berries, and avariety of vegetables, but they currently import themajority of their food. Lopez therefore relies heavily on a well-functioning external supply chain [67].

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

49

Several areas define the current agriculture system challenges on Lopez:

1) Current land use patterns: Consistent with thetrends in San Juan County as a whole, the size ofagricultural parcels has declined in recent years.Additionally, the 2007 USDA Census of Agriculturemeasures a net loss of income for farming operations in San Juan County. Thus, the farming community must determine the most appropriate useof and production patterns on existing agriculturallands.2) Consumption Trends: Seasonality affects consumption and production patterns on the island.Producers seek to find a balance between localproduction and distribution patterns while consumers seek to find the appropriate balance of off- andon- island purchases in accordance with growingseason and the population flux during peak touristseason. Consumption on Lopez is thus characterized by a strong support for local goods accompanied by the purchase of off-island goods to meetconsumer needs and preferences.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

3) Economic Challenges: The farming sector faces

challenges around the price of land and farm inputsas well as identifying efficient distribution systems.The agricultural sector must identify an economically viable model to ensure the legacy of farmingcontinues on Lopez.4) Regulatory Challenges: Regulatory challengesnaturally arise in a system that seeks to addresscounty-wide issues for islands comprised of differing land area and demographics. Lopez must workwithin current regulations and identify key areas toadvocate for adjustments to the current system.This section first details the current practices characterizing the islands agriculture and food systemtoday. Next, it explores potential climate-inducedthreats to the food system. Finally, it presentspotential solutions in terms of economic efficiency,environmental sustainability, contribution to resilience and adaptability, and cultural norms andarrives at a set of recommendations for achieving amore resilient food system on Lopez by 2025.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

50

CURRENT PRACTICES[agriculture and water]CURRENT LAND USE PATTERNS

The agricultural production of food crops for human consumption on Lopez Island has declinedover the last century. As the chart below shows,orchards were prevalent in the early to mid 20thcentury. The island also cultivated potatoes inabundance. Currently there are 160 parcels ofactively farmed land on Lopez. The 2007 USDACensus of Agriculture for San Juan County foundthe average farm size in the county to be 74 acres.However, aside from livestock and hay, most activefarm operations such as market gardens occur onrelatively smaller parcels of less than 20 acres [67].Currently there is an almost even breakdown between leased and owner operated farms with justover 100 leased parcels of farmland, and 99 parcelsof owner operated farms on the island. In additionto small parcels for commercial production, manylarge tracts of farmland on Lopez are leased, mainlyfor livestock grazing and haying [67].

The current farming mix ranges from small-scale

growers of diversified produce to large scale cattleranching and haying. The production processesrange from conventional to beyond organic, as inthe case of Hennings biodynamic S&S HomesteadFarm. Currently, 26 farms produce a mix of livestock, fruit, and vegetables on Lopez [68]. A number of the farms use organic practices and someeven exceed organic standards, but cannot afford,or choose to not pay, the certification inspectionfees required for official certification.It is noteworthy that Lopez Island farmers todaydedicate a large proportion of their agriculturalland to the production of hay as an animal feedand bedding crop. Reasons for this are numerous.Residents of the island explain that haying is a viable option for aging farmers and landowners forwhom farming is not the main income generatingactivity. Many of these landowners favor haying

FIGURE 5. SOURCE: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

51

FIGURE 6. SOURCE: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

for animal feed on large tracts of conserved land

due to the low cost of initial entry, the low laborintensity requirement, and the low maintenancecosts. These reasons make haying the favored formof cultivation for those landowners who must showagricultural activity on their land in order to qualifyfor certain tax benefits. However, because hayingpractices that occur season after season with littleto no soil amendments, many fields have becomenutrient poor, resulting in lower quality livestockfeed [1].Haying permits landowners to qualify for the OpenSpaces Taxation Act (RCW 84.34) for agriculturalland. This tax benefit supports the ongoing use ofland that may not be put to its fully calculated production potential. This is ideal for landowners whoare not full time farmers, but rather farm their landin addition to other income generating activities orchoose to lease it for other farmers to use.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

Conservation of large tracts of land and support for

keeping land in agricultural production is a commonpractice on Lopez today. Lopez Island and San JuanCounty have prioritized the need to preserve openspace in the face of changing land use patterns.The San Juan Preservation Trust and the San JuanCounty Land Bank provide support in placing landunder several categories of conservation: generalland easements and land preserves in addition toagricultural land easements and agricultural landpreserves. Regulations such as the Open SpacesTaxation Act (RCW 84.34) ensure that land remainsavailable for open space conservation and/or agricultural production depending on the particularagreement. In this process, large landholders agreeto maintain these tracts of land in perpetuity andas a result adhere to limits on infrastructure andcertain types of land development.Measures to conserve Lopezs major land resourcesare important to the community considering that

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

52

the majority of land on Lopez Island is either agricultural or designated for agricultural use [67]. TheNational Resources Conservation Service has identified 34 soil types suitable for farming in San JuanCounty [69]. The soil survey determined that mostof the soils in San Juan County support a vigorousplant community of agricultural grasses and forbsspecies (an herbaceous flowering plant other thangrasses) [70].

CURRENT CONSUMPTION TRENDS

Current food consumption trends on Lopez vary depending on the season, as increased summertimepopulation and local growing seasons affect bothsupply and demand. The increased island population during the summer season causes sales at LVMto roughly double compared to the winter season.Overall, there appears to be a strong local interestin consuming local products, as demonstrated byan active Locavores group, two Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs, farm stands,and a number of local outlets that highlight locallygrown and produced products. Some of our surveyrespondents reported looking at labels alwaysor often to see where a product was made orgrown. Blossom Grocery offers Lopez Islands largest selection of local and organic products. LopezVillage Market, the largest retail market on theisland, has a Lopez-local section. Stores on Lopezusually label locally-sourced produce, meat, andshellfish when it is available for sale. However,most vendors (e.g., LVM) focus mainly on meetingthe demands of their customers, without much distinction between whether the products are locallysourced or not.In spite of the interest in buying local products,very few if any Lopezians consume solely Lopezmade products. The few who do, or who successfully did for a short period of time, describe the necessity of dramatic changes in lifestyle and eatinghabits. Henning Sehmsdorf, owner of S&S Home-

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

stead Farm, described a year that she and her family spent eating a strictly local diet, which included alarge portion of potatoes and lard [71]. Sehmsdorfsgoal of eating only food produced on his farm andonly feeding his animals food produced on his farmrequires a level of time and commitment that mostwould find daunting: pickling, canning, and dryinglarge amounts of summer produce for winter consumption; a lack of diversity in meal options duringthe winter months; and careful storing and feedingregimens for livestock, to name a few all of whichtook the time and effort of nearly a full-time job [1].Almost all Lopezians buy some of their food offisland, for greater product diversity, a lower pricepoint, and/or the convenience of already being in abig box store off-island.In interviews, Lopezians often remarked that thegreatest hindrance to eating locally is the lack ofadequate and consistent supply. Aaron Dye of LVMstated that most local farms on Lopez simply cannot provide enough for his volume of sales. BrianKvistad of Blossom Grocery estimates that there areonly about 5-6 truly vibrant farms on the island interms of the ability to produce sufficient goods fora steady market supply during the growing season[72].In addition, most contemporary consumers areaccustomed to a diverse and, in the case of manyprocessed foods, subsidized food basket. LopezIslands climate, size, and current agriculture practices make it impossible for the island to provide asimilar level of diversity, or heavily processed andsubsidized food products. At the same time, a number of crops and livestock are currently underdeveloped on Lopez. When asked what local productsthey would like to see that are not currently available from local sources, survey respondents listeddairy products, various grains, affordable meat,organic meat, and fish. Notably, these are mostlyproducts that Lopez Island harvested successfullyin the past, but currently produces in much smallervolumes.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

53

FIGURE 7. SOURCE: United

States Department of Agriculture,National Agricultural StatisticsService

The exception is beef. While dairy farming has

sharply declined since the 1950s due to changesin regulations that make small-scale dairies morecostly or even cost-prohibitive, in the same period,the beef industry on Lopez has risen dramatically (see Figure 7 below). Sweetgrass Farm andJones Family Farm are two successful operationsthat raise Wagyu and grass fed cattle respectively,mostly for off-island markets in Seattle. Lopez farmers also produce lamb and pasture raised pork foroff-island markets.

CURRENT ECONOMIC CHALLENGES

Land Acquisition:The high price of land on Lopez creates a cost-prohibitive environment for those seeking to purchaseland for agriculture. The value per acre of farmlandin San Juan County has increased from $1,759/acre in 1964 to $8,691/acre in 2007, adjusted forinflation [73]. Wealthy residents, many of whomare only part time residents, own a majority ofthe large tracts of land on Lopez. Many of theselandowners have placed their properties underconservation easements to ensure they remain asopen spaces in perpetuity. Conservation measuresmeant to protect land from development limit the

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

number and location of structures that can be built

on a property. Young farmers often lack the capitalto purchase or lease the available parcels for farming purposes. Due to these barriers to entry, thefarming demographic is composed of mostly agingfarmers with very few young farmers entering theindustry.Nick Jones of Jones Family Farm explained thatsecuring land entails the demonstration of commitment and credibility by young farmers. He notesthat it is a big conceptual leap for landowners totransition to the constant presence of animals, cultivated plants, and fenced land on their open space.He noted that even when land is acquired, returning intensively hayed or fallow lands to productivityrequires a long process [74].

Infrastructure:In addition to the cost of land, farming on Lopezrequires basic infrastructural inputs such as deerfencing, secure water source(s), land preparation,farming equipment, tool sheds, housing and more.These inputs can be too expensive for beginningfarmers and make hiring interns or seasonal helpuneconomic. Farmers with access to land throughleases or other agreements must work with thelandowners to determine who will pay for and in-

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

54

Jones Family Farm

In operation for 10 years on Lopez Island, the Jones

Family Farm (JFF) is an excellent example of how

a young farmer can build a financially viable farm.Nick Jones attributes their success to the volumeand diversity of their products and to the importance of gaining the trust of landowners and mentor farmers.

JFF operates mainly on 3 fronts: a natural, grassbased pastured livestock farm producing USDAinspected beef, goat, and pork, as well as homebased produce; a shellfish farm producing 3 typesof clams and 3 varieties of oysters and mussels; anda commercial fishing operation harvesting healthywild stocks of seasonal salmon in Puget Sound. JFFalso does agricultural land consulting and restoration. They do not use commercial pesticides anduse organic fertilizer produced on the farm (check ifcorrect).In an interview with Nick, he described how JFFstruggled until it reached a large enough volumeand diversity of products. He also described howliberating it was to expand their market beyondSan Juan County. JFF nurtured connections in thelocal area and now their products are available inthe San Juan County islands and Seattle. Sales inSan Juan County sustain them through the summerwhile sales in Seattle sustain them through the winter. They also distribute for other Lopez growers.Networking with landowners and other farmerswas essential for JFFs successful growth. Their farmnow includes 300 acres of entirely leased land thatwas attained parcel by parcel as they gained thetrust of various landowners. Nick also acknowledges the invaluable advice and mentorship ofmore experienced farmers on the island and theimportance of tapping into that valuable source ofknowledge instead of attempting to reinvent thewheel. He emphasized that it is more incumbenton incoming farmers to demonstrate a certain levelof respect and humility to their elders.

Like many farmers on Lopez, he considers regulation to be the biggest impediment to the innovation and growth of the local food system: Whenwe started farming, the economics were stackedagainst small farming and it was a very challenging,difficult thing to wind our way through to a pointwhere we were stable and solvent. Now, what I seeis that the economics have improvedbut the levelof regulation, scrutiny and oversight has increasedto the point where its impossible from that angle. Ilook back at where weve been and someone starting in our position, essentially with no capital, andinterested in the things were interested in theywouldnt be able to do it now.Nick believes that there is a very good living to bemade in farming and that as fuel prices increase,small farmer will be at a greater comparative advantage. He especially sees great potential on LopezIsland for shellfish growing and describes it as a lowinput, environmentally sustainable industry thatcould potentially employ a lot of people.For more information about Jones Family Farm, visitwww.jffarms.com55

stall the basic farming infrastructure. Sandy Bishop

and Rhea Miller from the Lopez Community LandTrust explained that limits on the number andlocation of new structures on land under conservation measures proves challenging for farmers andapprentices who need to live on or near their farm.Conservation regulations also make it difficult to install or acquire farming infrastructure. Farmers whohave land often share equipment costs throughinformal equipment sharing agreements. Althoughcosts are minimized, sharing becomes challengingwhen farmers need to use equipment at the sametime.

Inputs:On Lopez you either have too little water or toomuch, said Sweet Grass Farms Scott Meyers.Yet Lopez Island experiences an annual rainfall ofonly 26.44 inches while according to the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, SeattleTacoma receives over 37 inches per year, and theisland has limited groundwater storage, extensiverunoff, and seawater intrusion in many wells. All ofthe interviewed farmers acknowledged an unspoken understanding that the aquifers on the islandare limited and therefore limit well water usage.Instead, they usually draw from ponds permittedfor commercial use in order to irrigate crops.

other areas are best described as sponges. Much

of the island is a seasonal wetland. All of this hasproved challenging for water retention, soil drainage, soil fertility, productive growing, and properlybalancing regulations such as wetland protectionwith farming needs. Many of the interviewed farmers improve their soil fertility by applying compostand compost teas from organic animal and cropwaste. Many others purchase other types of soilenhancing inputs like petroleum-based fertilizers.

Distribution and Storage:

Distribution of foods on Lopez range from informalbartering with neighbors to imports/exports to andfrom locations hundreds of miles away. Distributionsystems between Lopez and the rest of San JuanCounty, Seattle and the Pacific Northwest are fairlyreliant on fossil fuels. As the price of fuel rises, itwill become more important to strengthen distribution systems between nearby points.As detailed earlier, LVM receives the majority ofits stock from a small number of suppliers on themainland. Due to economies of scale, Blossomsometimes finds that the most cost-effective distribution route is one that is not ecologically efficient.For many organic products, placing an order froma source in Seattle is only possible by routing the

Interviewed farmers expressed great concern about

proposed regulations that would no longer permit the use of ponds for agriculture and proposedregulations that would prohibit contact betweenlivestock and surface water. Such restraints onwater would impede new farms from developingand force existing farms to alter practices that arecurrently mindful of the entire islands fresh watersupply.For an area of less than 30 square miles, LopezIsland shows a surprising diversity of soil characteristics, ranging from sandy and dry to clay andwetlands. Some areas on the island experienceextreme run-off with the soil acting as a sieve and

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

56

product through the supplier Organically Grown

Company in Eugene, Oregon. Distribution systemsbetween the islands of San Juan County are alsochallenging, since travel between Lopez and themainland is sometimes easier than travel betweenthe islands. Individuals are responsible for thestorage of produce for consumption during theoff-season. While some residents have recognizedthe potential for canning and freezing at a largerscale, no such commercial operation yet exists onthe island.While LVM and Blossom describe the challenges ofneeding to stock from off-island producers simultaneously, some on-island producers find it necessaryto sell to off-island consumers. Nick Jones describeshow it has been really liberating to expand beyondSan Juan County and how sales to Seattle restaurants carry their farms diverse products throughthe slow winter sales on Lopez.

REGULATORY CHALLENGES

Any farmer or businessperson who has dealt with

the bureaucracy of the modern world will complainabout the headache of regulations. Unfortunately,this is no different for the farmers on Lopez Island.Throughout interviews, it became clear that regulations are the root cause of what makes establishing new farmers, increasing distribution, anddealing with compliance so difficult. Many farmersdescribed the need for regulatory reform becausecurrent regulations impede innovation, which isvital to building a healthy food system. One farmerwent so far as to say, Were talking about foodsafety regulation that actually degrades the qualityof the food system. Environmental regulation thatactually degrades the quality of the environment.Worker safety and protection laws that actuallyendanger people [74].Examples of current countywide regulations meantto preserve the countys environment and culturalcharacter exist, but they actually have the opposite

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

effect of reducing Lopezs rural character. Perhaps

more applicable on other islands in the county toprotect against large-scale farming and industry,these regulations can deal serious blows to smallthe farms of Lopez Island. For example, a numberof hand painted U-pick berry signs on Lopez weretaken down by the county because they violatedcounty regulations on billboards while some farmstands were shut down due to lack of compliancewith public space requirements [75]. In the caseof farm stands, county ordinances do not includerules specifically addressing these roadside stands;the county instead often invokes public space rulesthat prevent the construction or siting of roadsidestands. Existing regulations may need to be adaptedor new regulations may be needed to supportemerging practices.Housing also poses a major regulatory challenge.Some landowners on Lopez do not actively farm butwould welcome having a farmer use the land productively. The biggest roadblock to that, however, isaccommodating the farmer with additional housingon the land he or she farms. This is due to the regulations that dictate land use and establishes thoseland use districts, or zoning laws.Most farming on the island takes place in districtszoned either as agricultural resource or ruralfarm forest zones. In relation to these zones, theSan Juan County code stipulates that Subjectto the provisions of this section, a detached [accessory dwelling unit] is permitted (County Code18.40.240). Provisions for farm stays, farmworker accommodations, duplexes, and cottageenterprises are also included in section 18.30.040.However, the allowance for these additional formsof housing is provisional which means there aremany restricting limitations. From interviews wefound that there are still many roadblocks for farmers looking for accommodations on land they arefarming or leasing but do not own [68].

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

57

At the time of our visit to Lopez Island, a long

delayed countywide audit of the Current Use Farmand Agriculture Programs was beginning in Lopezand creating frustration among farmers and landowners. At a council meeting relating to the Agriculture Current Use Taxation Program, AgriculturalResources Committee Coordinator Peggy Bill statedthat under the current program, Our tradition ofleasing land, sometimes without payment, to afarmer for production of hay and/or seasonal grazing will no longer be allowed. The San Juan Journaldescribes this tradition as win-win for farmersand landowners especially when it comes to seasonal farming because land is used for free and thelandowner is able to maintain their property forfuture agricultural uses. However, County AssessorCharles Zalmanek maintained, The law says thatland has to be farmed by commercial purposes,the law is not for bartering. It was never an option[76].

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

58

Water Story on Lopez : Is there enough?

Water resource issues in San Juan County have

of water would not need to go through the formal

permitting process of larger uses of water, but onLopez it has become the most common source ofhousehold water usage, resulting in great uncertainty about the islands actual water consumption. Meters have been added to newer wells, butthese meters are not monitored by any governmentagency or community group.

With such a vital resource in limited quantity, one

would expect detailed monitoring of water usagerates and aquifer recharge rates on Lopez Island.However, the most recent water consumptionrates we obtained were from the Lopez VillageWater Supply Report and Recommendations reportconducted nearly ten years ago. In the survey weconducted for this report, we asked Lopezianshow many gallons of water/month were usedfor domestic usage. More than half, 44 of the 81surveyed households, responded no idea, dontknow, unmetered usage or simply with a question mark. Of the 37 households that did providea usage rate, many indicated uncertainty aboutthe exact figure and responses showed a dramaticrange from 35 gal/month to 6,000 gal/month.

This is a cause for concern since water system

managers in San Juan County have found that thesingle most effective tool for conservation in watersystem management is the installation and readingof meters. The initial saving is in leak detection andrepairs, second is customer awareness, and finally,for the larger systems, a rate structure based onuse encourages additional efficiency [80]. Uncertainty about the islands total water consumptioncan lead to drawing more groundwater than can berecharged. Imagine multiple straws being added toa drink that is refilled infrequently. Everyone is toldto sip slowly, but no one is actually keeping track ofhow quickly he/she is sipping.

Water policies that result in the widespread use

of exempt, mostly unmetered wells cause theuncertainty about water usage on Lopez Island.Fisherman Bay Water Association acts as the mainpurveyor of water on Lopez Island, but their servicearea is limited to the Village center. WashingtonStates Department of Ecology has been hesitant togrant new water rights and rather than engage inthe often lengthy and laborious process of applyingfor a water right, most Lopezian landowners havetaken advantage of Washington States exemptwell provision. The law allows a person to drill awell and withdraw up to 5,000 gallons per day ofgroundwater without applying for a water right andreceiving a permit from Ecology. The provision wasadded so that the withdrawal of small quantities

Fortunately, a strong culture of water conservation

is practiced on Lopez. Farmers have an unspokenunderstanding that the aquifers on the island arelimited and usually draw from permitted ponds forcommercial use. Many households use low-flush orcomposting toilets. Estimated total island consumption in 2000 was 40,990 Cft/day and projected to be64,477 Cft/day in 2020 [81]. Assuming island population of 2,500, that is 16.4 Cft/day/person or 123gal/day/person. By comparison, the average waterconsumption in Washington State is 300 gal/day/person. In addition, long before Washington StatesDepartment of Ecology officially allowed the capture of rooftop rainwater in 2009, Lopezians werealready harvesting rainwater for non-potable usageand the installation of rainwater catchment systemsis becoming increasingly popular.

59

However, there are a number of challenges to

continuing these existing conservation practices.For example, one explanation for the low averageof water usage in the 2003 Lopez Village WaterSupply Report might be because 37 percent of thehouseholds included in the study were only occupied part of the year. As more part-time vacationhomes become full-time homes for retirees onLopez, water usage will increase. In addition, thefarming practice of drawing from ponds and othersurface water, even for small diversions, currentlyrequires applying for a water right and a permit.Many farmers expressed concern that these rightsand permits are becoming harder to obtain. Sincesmall diversions of water are allowed under exempt wells, more farmers may begin drawing morewater from aquifers. Lastly, harvesting rainwater inLopezs low precipitation climate has its limitations.There are currently two desalination/reverse osmosis plants on Lopez Island: one at Lopez LegacyLodge and one at Sperry Peninsula. Such plantsseem like an easy solution to water shortages foran island surrounded by seawater. Unfortunately,desalination plants are costly and typically resultin significant environmental impact on delicate

marine ecosystems. Ron Mayos 2009 report, The

Current Status of Desalination Systems in San JuanCounty, Washington argued that the existingdesalination plants were small enough that theycurrently did not have a significant environmentalimpact, but the widespread use of desalinationplants is also cost prohibitive, with capital costsabout $25/gallon per day.Due to the limited time and scope of this reportand due to conflicting, or absence of, data concerning the resilience of the aquifer on Lopez, thisreports main recommendation is that accurate andcurrent baseline data on water consumption onLopez Island be collected. This report also supportspolicies that encourage, rather than hinder, existing water conservation practices. Finally, this reportstrongly recommends collecting and distributingthe 400-500 thousand gallons of treated watercurrently discarded by the Fisherman Bay sewagedistrict each month. This recommendation is discussed in detail in the Waste section. Protecting theislands water supply and ensuring that the islandswater budget is integrated in building policies arepivotal as the island demographics, population size,and economic change.

Fisherman Bay sewage treatment facility.

60

POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS AND RISKS FACTORS

[agriculture and water]Given the current practices and regulations de-

scribed above, this section extrapolates as best as

possible what future scenarios might threaten theagricultural productivity on Lopez Island within thenext 30 years. Some of these threats are within thedirect control of the island community while others are influenced by larger geopolitical influencesand a climatic changes that collective action of theLopez community cannot directly impact. Thesepotential risks can, however, be mitigated throughplanning for resilience.

ECONOMIC VIABILITY

If it remains increasingly difficult to come up with

an economically viable business plan for farming,farmers will be unable to expand local food production. Prohibitive start-up costs and regulatoryrestrictions threaten the long-term sustainability of

farming. Lopez already faces a lack of young farmers entering the business. Potentially interestedyoung farmers will have little means or incentive toundertake the business risks necessary for continuing the farming legacy of todays aging farmingpopulation [67]. Moreover, although some largelandowners are willing to lease their land, this opportunity cannot be maximized without the identification of a viable economic model that supportsinitial infrastructural needs on farmland.

SOIL FERTILITY

The intensively haying of many large parcels also

threatens the long-term sustainability of agricultureon the island. This practice has depleted soil fertility. Although the soils can be reconstituted, theywill require time and care if a healthy amount oforganic matter is to be reestablished in an organic,

61

ecologically responsible manner.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change predictions may affect growing

patterns and practices on Lopez. Predicted changesfrom the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the International Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), for example, include a net decline inannual precipitation and a net increase in temperatures. The predictions report drier summers with1.5 inches less rain in the Pacific Northwest duringthe summer months, 20-60 years from now. TheIPCC report projects precipitation changes basedon a global climate model. This model predicts thatwinters will be wetter and summers drier in the Seattle region. More specifically, between Decemberand February, the region is expected to experience10 additional inches of precipitation. Between Juneand August, however, the region will experienceanywhere from 10 to 20 inches less rain [77]. Thenet change will therefore be between 0 and negative 10 inches of precipitation. While an increasein temperature may seem good for agriculture, theclimate is complex. Hence, the combined change inprecipitation and temperature can possibly lead tomore evaporation and cloud cover. These predictedshifts will undoubtedly affect growth rates and cultivation schedules on Lopez Island.Moreover, as a net importer of food, the island willbe subject to yield and price fluctuations in off-

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

island food producing regions. Such changes could

include shifting precipitation patterns, disease,changing crop yields, and more, all of which mayaffect both on and off island food prices dependingon the magnitude and type of change.

COMMODITY SHOCKS

Lopez may experience a changing market due to

higher costs associated with food purchases bothon and off island. Global and local food systemsdepend on fuel for production through distribution and consumption. For this reason, the cost offood imports and exports for Lopez may increasein response to rising fuel costs and the subsequenteffect on supply chains. As the transportation sector explains in detail, gasoline and diesel prices arepredicted to increase at least 2 to 3 percent annually between now and 2025 [78]. The resultantrising food prices could pose challenges to bothfarmers and island consumers. If fuel costs increase, it will become more expensive for Lopezianfarmers to use farm equipment for food harvestingand production. This added cost could potentiallynecessitate an increase in prices of local farmersgoods. Moreover, farmers will face higher costsfor shipping food off the island to their currentmarkets. This also means that food imports will bemore expensive. Rising fuel prices will also increasethe cost of trips to purchase food commodities andnecessities from off island stores.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

62

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

[agriculture and water]This section presents potential areas of exploration for increasing the resilience of the agriculture system onLopez. They are organized by those targeting land use and infrastructure, labor challenges, community buy-into make lasting change, and sharing costs / resources.

Recommend Go for Implementation:

1) Form a local agriculture advisory committee5) Promote local farmers through educational campaigns6) Host seasonal community events to promote local agriculture8) Create a value-add communal industrial kitchen9) Build a co-op greenhouseRecommend Further Research:2) Reform zoning laws3) Form agriculture partnerships with research institution4) Implement a farmer sponsorship program7) Support a GMO-Free Lopez Island10) Construct communal roadside stands for local farmers

63

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE (1-3)

FORM A LOCAL AGRICULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The formation of an advisory committee of farmers is mandated under Washington State Statute RCW84.34.145: The county legislative authority shall appoint a five member committee representing the activefarming community within the county to serve in an advisory capacity to the assessor in implementing assessment guidelines as established by the department of revenue for the assessment of open space, farms and agricultural lands, and timber lands classified under chapter 84.34 RCW. The advisory committee does not giveadvice regarding the valuation or assessment of specific parcels of land. However, it may supply the assessorwith advice on typical crops, land quality, and net cash rental assessments to assist the assessor in determiningappropriate values [79]. At the time of writing this report, such an advisory board does not exist.PROS

CONS

> Compliance with state law

> Auditing and regulation can be better informed ofand guided by the specific complexities of farming onLopez Island> Promote greater transparency and consistency in application of lawsenvironmentalsustainability

not applicable

> Potential for more bureaucracy

> More meetings for involved community members

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: GOWe recommend the appointment of such a committee. Under current law, an advisory committee is required.However, at this time, the legislative authority has yet to convene one. Because lack of an advisory committeedoes not invalidate the listing of a property on its value assessment or the taxes associated with the property,the impetus must come from the local community to lobby that such a committee is necessary and valuable.

REFORM ZONING LAWS

This potential solution would allow additional housing and additional permanent structures on protectedparcels. Reformed zoning laws would facilitate accommodations for farmers and their equipment. This recommendation received unanimous consent from all farmers interviewed for this paper. Since reforming these lawsrequires a challenging political process, it is directly in line with San Juan Countys Comprehensive Plan andin accordance with the intent of countys code. The San Juan County Comprehensive Plan states that [Landuse districts] are clearly defined so as to conserve agricultural, forest, mineral resource and environmentally

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

64

sensitive lands. These areas provide for commerce and community activities without losing their small scaleand attractive island ambiance. This plan is referenced in Chapter 18 of the San Juan Code, which states thatits purpose is To implement the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies through land use andother regulations while maintaining aesthetic advantages of orderly development. These goals can still beaccomplished while making additional provisions for extra farm housing that can be recessed from view, maintaining a rural look and function.PROS

CONS

> Clearer legal guidelines for land use planning

> Ability to house workers on farm land> Incentive to utilize open land for farmingenvironmental

> Additional bureaucract process

cultural

resilience &

sustainability

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: RESEARCHWe recommend that Lopez explore communityzoning preferences further before acting on thissolution. Moreover, we recommend a focus onincreasing community wide buy-in for farm friendlyzoning laws prior to influencing the policy cycle.Once this is established, to Reforming Zoning Lawshas to start through a policy cycle. The first step ofthis policy cycle is to draw attention to the prob-

lem, thereby setting the Political agenda so that

zoning laws are brought up in county meetings.Considering the attention this issue receives frommembers closely associated with farming and farmplanning, getting it on the agenda should not betoo difficult unless previous attempts to do so havebeen stifled in the past.

FORM AGRICULTURE PARTNERSHIPS WITH RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS

Lopez can partner with a research institution such as the nearby University of Washington (UW) to addressagricultural needs and generate valuable information for the agricultural sector as it adapts to climate change.Currently UWs College of the Environment runs a laboratory for marine biology exploration on Friday Harbor.This college has a Climate Change Impacts research group exploring climate change impacts on the PacificNorthwest through research and engagement with regional stakeholders. There is a potential for Lopez to offerthe islands agricultural sector as a research area for the Climate Change Impacts Group. The research groupmay find it possible to use the existing Friday Harbor laboratory as its local base, visiting Lopez to engage withlocal farmers.

> Lopezian farmers relying on university funded support (subject to budget cuts)> Funded research or technical help subject to changesin university budget> Closest research station located at Friday Harbor

cultural

resilience &

sustainability

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: RESEARCHWe suggest that Lopezians explore the feasibilityof this partnership further. Due to the prior existence of a research facility and relationship withthe surrounding area, the College of the Environment may be willing to discuss the idea with Lopez.The potential for research-based support regardingagriculture-related climate change challenges could

unknown

benefit Lopez. This will require an individual from

the island to make inquiries with the University andto explore options for designing a mutually beneficial partnership. At this point it is recommendedthat Lopezians explore this option further, followingthe implementation of other recommended solutions in this section.

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR LABOR CHALLENGES (4)

IMPLEMENT A FARMER SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM

This program would be designed to connect donors with young farmers looking to start a career on Lopez. Thisis a way to engage part-time or full-time residents who own agricultural land on Lopez with beginner, landlessfarmers. This connection could occur either through direct sponsorship or reduced lease rates for young farmers to use their land for farming purposes.PROS

CONS

> Engaging part-time residents with land in the community and agricultural system on Lopez> Support system for young farmers is in line with thecommunity centric mindset in Lopez> Increased economic access to land and resourcesmay increase local food production and support localeconomy> Balance out the aging population of farmers

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

> Farmers may be constrained by the farming vision

of their sponsors (those with the funds)> Possible over-expansion of the farming sector if largeamount of funds made accessible

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

66

environmentalsustainability

unknown

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: RESEARCHWe recommend that Lopezians begin planningthis program. The Farmer Sponsorship programis economically sustainable because it invigoratesthe local economy. The program supports a resilient farming system by enabling young and newfarmers to enter into the farming sector currentlycharacterized by an aging population. This ensurescontinued development of the farming sector.Furthermore, it upholds the strong sense of community Lopezians have. However, the impact onenvironmental sustainability would require furtherstipulations around the type of farming that is supported by this sponsorship program. For example,an increase in more conventional, intensive agriculture would result in less environmental sustainability while an increase in more sustainable, organicagriculture practices would likely increase environmental sustainability.

Eventual Implementation:If Lopezians can construct a farm sponsorshipprogram that promotes environmental sustainability, then they could design it based on these maininitial steps. First, current and potential farmersmust work together to form a small group dedicated to overseeing the organization and communication of the sponsorship program. This group wouldideally be made up of new and current farmers aswell as several non-farmer community representatives such as Localvore members This group shouldgather local data at the county level to determinewhich residents to target as sponsors. A strategicplan should be composed to determine a targetedapproach for engaging with potential sponsors andfarmers from the moment of initial financial support through the process of facilitating communication between sponsors and farmers receiving theirsupport. This group must utilize existing outletssuch as Lopez Rocks and informal communityevents to foster the support of community members in making this a viable program.

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITY BUY-IN: MAKING LASTING CHANGE (5-7)

There are varying opinions about the role anddegree to which food security and independenceshould be set as a target for the future. Despitea lack of island wide consensus, there is a stronginterest in increasing local food production andconsumption for economic, environmental, andhealth reasons. There is still potential to increasefood production on Lopez Island for both local andoff-island markets. Our policy recommendations

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

therefore aim at achieving three objectives: increasing food production, increasing the local market,and increasing the distribution networks. This willhelp small farmers achieve the necessary economies of scale that will make their investments andcommitments worthwhile and encouraging. In thissection, methods for increasing the local market areexamined with a focus on purchasing behavior.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

67

PROMOTE LOCAL FARMERS THROUGH EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGNS

Educational campaigns such as those supported by the Locavore movement accomplish much in the way ofdirecting consumer attention to the benefits of buying local, like those to their personal and environmentalhealth and to the local economy. Big areas of focus range from encouraging consumers to eat seasonally toreconsidering the number of trips they make to big-box stores off-island for non-staple goods.PROS

CONS

> Promotes local purchasing

> Keeps money in the local economy> Builds community spirit

environmental

> Time and money spent on campaign requires a cadre

of dedication> Likely will not influence tourist behavior in thesummercultural

resilience &

sustainability

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: GOWe recommend that Lopez begin planning aneducational campaign. A shift to more local beginsby understanding existing attitudes and behaviorsbehind consumption trends. This assessment wouldseek to determine what constitutes a necessityor staple food item for consumers that can not bepurchased on-island.Educational Campaigns will have to be implemented by a group of people probably working on a voluntary basis. Because they are not huge campaigns,funding will be small, and implementation wouldprobably work best small, easily digestible, hour-

long, one-day, weekend workshops or meetings.

We recommend beginning with a community widesurvey to determine key areas of focus and knowledge gaps. High school students can be utilizedto conduct consumer assessments and measurelevels of awareness around certain topics. Studentscan potentially earn credit and real world researchexperience through the drafting of surveys andinterviews. In this way, the educational campaignscan work with the school and community membersalike. Over time, community leaders can be identified and trained to teach more workshops.

HOST SEASONAL COMMUNITY EVENTS TO PROMOTE LOCAL AGRICULTURE

These events can also function as educational campaigns with the added benefit of entertainment and recreation. Events such as cook-offs and perhaps the occasional indulgent pie eating competition could be organizedaround locally grown and cooked foods. This brings the community in direct contact with the farmers they aresupporting. If organized throughout the year, the seasonality of certain foods is easy to spotlight, encouragingadditional purchases of those products.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

68

PROS

CONS

> Promotes sense of community and sharing

> Use of local productsenvironmental

> Can be challenging to organize

cultural

resilience &

sustainability

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: GOWe recommend that Lopez increase the number ofseasonal community events currently held. Theseevents support local consumption and communitybuilding while providing an alternative outlet foreducating the community about the local food system. Seasonal Community Events are easy to organize in public spaces such as the Community Centerwhere facilities already in place can be used for

cook-offs, presentations, and auctions. A rotating

schedule for planning and hosting can be enactedto ensure that the responsibility of planning theevents is shared throughout the community. Theseevents can also be hosted in in peoples homes. Asthe events grow in popularity, perhaps they can beexpanded to include more educational information.

SUPPORT A GMO-FREE LOPEZ ISLAND

This is the initiative to keep genetically modified organisms off the island and to limit their presence in thefood chain and distribution network on the island. As many non-organically produced foods purchased offisland have a large chance of being genetically modified, this campaign will help Lopezians understand theimportance of supporting small-scale local agriculture thereby increasing the market share of local agriculturalproducts.

> Challenges when importing food to island

> Would require buy-in from food importers, and likelythe creation of an oversight committee

unknown

-- Waste --

culturalacceptability

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

69

Recommendation: RESEARCHAreas for Further Research:Further research is necessary for promoting a GMOFree Lopez. Scientific data on the environmentalimpacts of GMOs is not definitive at this point.Thus, it is unclear what the environmental impactof an increase in non-GMO products would be onLopez. Similarly, it is unclear whether a non-GMO

focus would increase local resilience more than

other practices focused around supporting the localfood system. The promotion of a GMO-free Lopez isalready being implemented through a public policycampaign that is collecting signatures for a ballotmeasure. However, increased community buy-in isnecessary if Lopezians do feel strongly about thispassing as a countywide policy.

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR SHARING COSTS / RESOURCES (8-10)

In order to help increase the local market, distribution networks, and achieve economies of scale, this paperrecommends a series of cost and resource sharing options for farmers.

CREATE A VALUE-ADD COMMUNAL INDUSTRIAL KITCHEN

This potential solution deals with perishable agricultural items and creates a place where food for communityevents can be prepared, among other activities. Processing them into sauces and canned soups is a way tokeep or sell healthy but misshapen produce, retain shelf life of surplus produce, and add value to the product.Examples of value-added preservation techniques include turning berries into jam or sorbets and making friedor baked chips out of wintergreens. Canning fruits and vegetables and pickling certain items are other viablesolutions.

PROS>>>>

CONS

Less food wasted

Earn money during off-seasonShared cost of kitchen equipment and facilitiesKnowledge and recipe sharing would likely lead toinnovations

environmentalsustainability

Welcome -- Transportation --

> Building or renovating a structure requires significant

resources (e.g., time, money, management)> A single kitchen decreases the resilience of havingmultiple kitchens in the event something happens tothe communal one> Equipment costs can run high> Finding a group to maintain equipment and managekitchen usecultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

70

Recommendation: GOWe recommend the continued planning of a communal industrial kitchen which is already underwayand working through the permitting and fundingstages under the lead of Randal Waugh. In order toensure the success of this project, we recommenda light community outreach process in order to getall community members on board and perhaps to

help with fundraising for the land and structure.

Upon completion of the structure, Lopezians shouldestablish a rotating management and maintenancesystem to ensure that community members bothuse and take responsibility for upkeep of the facility

BUILD A CO-OP GREENHOUSE

A co-op greenhouse addresses the seasonal cultivation challenges that Lopez geographically faces for yearround agricultural production. A greenhouse allows farmers to start seedlings in the late winter and earlyspring without the risk of frost killing the crop. This also increases the number of harvests that can be attainedin any given year, thereby increasing market share and helping to attain economies of scale.PROS

CONS

> Shared cost

> Rentable space> Knowledge sharing would likely lead to innovations

environmentalsustainability

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: GOWe recommend the construction of a communitygreenhouse on Lopez. Lopezians must first locatea prime location for the greenhouse, taking intoaccount weather, accessibility, sunlight exposure,and more. Funding for the greenhouse projectmust come from community pooled funds or anidentified donor. Those farmers hoping to use thegreenhouse should be involved in constructionand preparation of the greenhouse. A set of com-

Welcome -- Transportation --

> Responsibility for maintenance and management

must be arranged> Structure, seeds, and tools could carry a significanttotal cost> A single greenhouse decreases the resilience ofhaving multiple greenhouses in the event somethinghappens to the communal one

Agriculture / Water

mon practices for preparation, planting, cultivation

methods (i.e., organic or inorganic, type of inputs,irrigation methods, etc.), harvesting, and careshould be decided on by all users. The division ofspace and maintenance responsibilities should bedocumented and overseen by a greenhouse manager to ensure proper maintenance and a set ofcommon practices are upheld in the greenhouse.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

71

10

CONSTRUCT COMMUNAL ROADSIDE STANDS FOR LOCAL FARMERS

These are the most direct way of eliminating the middleman or third party distributor and getting fresh agricultural products directly to consumers. A central location like the Lopez Village Center would be ideal as consumers already on their trip to town would not be inconvenienced by visiting multiple farms to gather their desiredagricultural items. Meeting public space regulations are obviously a challenge, but through collective action,modifications to the County Code and exceptions to it can be made to allow a permanent farm stand structure. Farmers can rotate duties manning the stand and acting as a sales representative for all items available.Common crops such as greens and veggies can be pooled together and revenues shared while specialty itemssuch as grass fed meats can be directly deposited in an accountable manner to that respective farmers cashbox. Compared to buying food off island, this option is more environmentally sustainable in terms of fuel costssaved for shipping or travel to obtain the goods.PROS

CONS

> Centrally located = more business

> Shared cost of space > Low labor costs if done on a trust basis

environmentalsustainability

> Cost of land and structure

> Accountability for working at and maintaining thefarm stand> Communal roadside stand decreases the resilience ofhaving many individual stands in the event something happens to the communal ones (more farmerswould be affected per stand)cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

unknown

Recommendation: RESEARCHWe recommend exploring the communal roadsidestands further due to uncertainties around publicspace regulations and zoning regulations. It is unsure whether there would be total community buyin due to the need to the need to address publicspace regulations.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

72

S&S Homestead Farm

S&S Homestead Farm is an amazing example of

the sustainable productivity potential of land on

Lopez Island. Based on estimations of output-toland rations, if all farms were all well managedas this one, Lopez Island would not only be selfsufficient but they would have a perfectly healthyand diversified diet of grains, fruits, vegetables,and high quality organic meat. Its owners, Henning Sehmsdorf and Elizabeth Simpson, use anintensely integrated form of biodynamic farming toachieve maximum yields with zero artificial inputs.In fact, all inputs come from the farm itself. Toexplain biodynamic farming, one could get into thephilosophies and technicalities behind living in aclosed looped integrated system, but to sum it upsimply, Hennings idea is to essentially feed thesoil organic compost so that the soil itself is a livingthing, full of micro-organisms that excrete essential nutrients plants need to grow. This is similarto organic agriculture, of course, in that it usesnatural cycles instead of chemically manufacturedinputs. Their biodynamic farm takes the conceptof natural cycles to the limit, however. Whereasofficially certified organic crops can still use inputs and fertilizers classified organic, their farmis considered a closed-loop system that utilizes ano-till, integrated pest management system thatrequires almost comically little labor for weeding.They produce everything from meat, vegetables,dairy, and hay. Anything that remains in surplus issold or pickled for year-long personal consumptionand the grasses are used to feed the livestock. Theydo not buy hay, but rely only on what he farm canproduce. Hennings philosophy is that in order toremain in balance and sustainable, only the number of animals that the land can support on its ownshould be farmed in any one place. If the land canonly support x number of animals, then Henningwill only maintain x animals. This is an example of abalanced system, and balance means resilience.

For their own subsistence, Henning and Elizabeth

grow a variety of fruits, vegetables, and grains.Chickens provide eggs and dairy cows provide milkand cream, which is subsequently churned to makebutter. They grind rye and wheat into flour to makebread. Barley and oats are fed to the animals.Besides being intimately in tune with its naturalsurroundings, S&S Homestead Farm also has somevery technical aspects to it which help reduceenergy and water use. Henning planned in advancewhen he originally bought the land and started tobuild on it by facing all large roof surfaces directlyto the south so as to take advantage of the continually developing solar technology at the time. Oncethe price for panels dropped and their efficiency increased to levels that would make it worthwhile, hemade the investment and had them installed. Yearslater, the panels are paying for themselves.More information can be found at:http://www.sshomestead.org/.<http://www.sshomestead.org/

place in terms of agricultural production and its

food system. Many of the farmers and communitymembers with whom we spoke have spent manyyears thinking critically about the challenges thatLopez faces and the opportunities for overcomingthese challenges. Our interviews with local farmers revealed a wealth of knowledge and innovative ideas for transforming the local food system,increasing the resiliency of the value of the agricultural sector, and above all of fostering a sense ofcommunity in all aspects of the food system. Thefarming community is well-equipped to make somenecessary changes but must do so in a way that iseconomically, environmentally, and socially acceptable.

The most pressing issues for Lopez to address include re-thinking the kind and quality of agriculturethat is promoted on the island. This includes landuse patterns, fostering consumption trends thatsupport local resilience, identifying an economically viable model to ensure the legacy of farmingcontinues, and addressing regulatory challengescurrently hindering the advancement of the agricultural system and limiting the resiliency of the localfood system. As an island, Lopez has many optionsfor fostering community buy in and pushing forward meaningful change but this must be done inan informed and well-planned manner. It is hopedthat this section highlights key issues for consideration in forming a resilient and environmentallysound food system on Lopez.

As with all other material products on island, the

rising costs of fossil fuels will make cost of transporting waste materials off-island more expensive.This report will identify various opportunities forclosing resource loops, thus eliminating or significantly reducing this cost along with its associatedenvironmental burdens.

CURRENT PRACTICES[waste]Below, all waste products have been organized into one of five categories: garbage; recyclables; greenwaste; sewage waste; and hazardous waste. Lopezians currently pay to have the majority of these waste products removed from the island, with the notable exception of green waste.SOLID WASTE: GARBAGE

Over the last decade, Lopez island solid waste and

recyclable production has more or less leveled outdespite mild population growth, suggesting that local initiatives promoting waste reduction have beenfairly successful.San Juan County offers limited curbside pick-upservices managed by the San Juan SanitationCompany. Most residents do not have curbsideservice and take their solid waste and recyclablesdirectly to the Lopez Transfer Station while on theirway into town. Regardless of whether the wasteis picked up or dropped off, residents pay a fee tocover all collection services, including disposal oftheir garbage and recyclables.The Transfer Station currently collects garbage andco-mingled recyclables year round. Waste Management, a private company working on a contractbasis with Lopez Island, then picks up the wasteand transports it to Orcas Island. Containers atLopez Transfer Station are 40 cubic yards. WasteManagement ships by ferry about one garbageand one co-mingled container to Orcas every fewdays, more often during the summer season. Oncethere, the garbage is consolidated into 120 cubicyard intermodal containers (truck / rail) and thenferried to Anacortes. Next the garbage is truckedfrom Anacortes to a location near Seattle, where itis transferred to rail lines. Finally it reaches its ultimate destination by rail to a landfill near Arlington,Oregon approximately 350 miles from Lopez.Before the privatization of the collection system in2002, the Lopez Transfer Station compacted and

bundled waste at its facilities. Lopezians still use

the transfer station for collection, the station nolonger compacts or bundles waste there. An onisland activist group called Take Back the Dumpis pushing to restore local management and createa locally owned Solid Waste Disposal District forLopez Island. Despite popular support, the programhas recently come up against a limit: the need foran on-island county management presence. As ofthe writing of this paper, the group collected andsubmitted over 1200 signatures to have a $100,000tax proposal on the next ballot in order to payfor on-island management. For more informationregarding this campaign, readers may visit http://takebackthedump.blogspot.com.Even if Lopezians vote to restore a local collectionsystem, it would not remove the need to ship thefinal waste bundles to a landfill off-island. Prospects of siting a landfill on Lopez are limited, due tothe complications of agreeing upon a location, andbecause San Juan County currently has a long-termcontract with Waste Management. The long-termcontract obligates Lopez to continue using theservices of Waste Management for solid wastedisposal, and thus removes the decision of landfillsiting from Lopezian control.The Lopez Transfer Station also collects gently useditems in a large open shed, providing a free-cycletake it or leave it center for residents. This program is widely celebrated by the community, andsuccessfully diverts thousands of otherwise usableitems from the landfill each year.

76

Take it or Leave it shed, an

informal freesycle space locatedat the Lopez Transfer Staion.

SOLID WASTE: RECYCLABLES

Through a San Juan County contract, Lopezians

also pay Waste Management to collect and shiptheir recyclables alongside their garbage (financedthrough drop-off fees). As with garbage, the Lopezisland transfer station is still used for collection, butno longer compacts, bundles, or sorts the recyclables. The station used to have a right to sell therecyclables for a profit, but under the new systemindividuals must pay to drop recyclables, and thecollection company owns the sales profits. According to the Lopez Transfer Station Log for the year2011, 291 tons of co-mingled recyclables were collected and shipped off Lopez Island. Scrap metals,the only sorted recyclable materials, are sent to theSkagit River Recycling company in Burlington, WA,while the co-mingled recyclables are destined fora Waste Management Company facility in Woodinville, north of Seattle. As with most recycling regimens, the quantity of material ultimately recycleddepends almost entirely on the market for recyclables. Therefore, it is impossible to say how muchof Lopezian recyclables are truly sent to factories tobe melted down for reuse, and how much are sentinstead to the landfill.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

GREEN WASTE: YARD CLIPPINGS AND

FOOD SCRAPS

Neither the San Juan County Sanitation Company

nor Waste Management Company collect foodwaste or yard clippings in a separated waste streamfrom solid waste. Of households that respondedto our survey, a strong majority reported that theyhandle their yard clippings on their personal property, either spreading, composting, wood-chippingor burning it on-site. The majority also handlesfood scraps at home, either composting outdoors,maintaining a worm bin, or using it as animal feed.While it is important to factor in the likely greenbias of our survey respondents, most farms that weobserved or spoke with have self-contained compost systems, utilizing food scraps, agricultural byproducts, manure or all of the above for compostproduction, which is then applied back to the landto improve soil fertility.The Lopez Sand and Gravel company collects approximately 5,000 cubic yards of yard clippings perburn. Buffum grinds roughly one-third into mulchto sell, and burns the remaining two-thirds. Thequantity mulched reflects the island demand forBuffum Co. mulch [36]. Buffum combines the ashes

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

77

from the burn pile into a compost mix, which is

The Fisherman Bay Sewer District collects the

sewage waste from 150 households within or nearLopez Village as well as the Lopez School. Througha series of aerobic and anaerobic ponds, the districtfilters and treats approximately 400,000-500,000gallons of water each month, which are then discharged directly into the ocean. While this wateris not treated to a level appropriate for potableconsumption, it does meet the standards for mostagricultural irrigation (except root crops).Outside of the Fisherman Bay Sewer District, Lopezians use 1,000-gallon septic tanks that requireperiodic draining. For a fee, an independent contractor pumps the septic contents into 3,500-gallontruck and stops at the Fisherman Bay treatmentplant to siphon off the lightest fluids. The remaining septic waste is then taken to Anacortes byferry, where it is incinerated. The trucking companymakes an average of two ferry trips per monthduring the winter, and four ferry trips per monthduring the summer. This sums to between 100,000and 120,000 gallons of septic waste ferried off theisland per year.

HAZARDOUS WASTE:CHEMICALS AND E-WASTE

Empty toxic containers (from oil, antifreeze, pesticides, paints, etc.) and electronic waste (e-waste)are not accepted in the garbage for curbside pickup, nor via drop-off at the Transfer Station. Thereis, however, a state-registered e-cycle facility on Orcas Island. The Lopez Transfer Station holds specialevents for the collection of e-waste and hazardousmaterials throughout the year, and then ships thiswaste to the Orcas island facility.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

78

POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS AND RISKS FACTORS

[waste]If all current waste management practices were tocontinue without changing, Lopezians day-to-daylives would probably not be drastically affected. Butherein lies the danger: the impacts of the wastestream are largely invisible in contemporary society even for conscious citizens like Lopezians. Thatsaid, they certainly would feel the economic impactfrom continuing to pay to have these potentially recoverable resources removed from the island andin the process would be paying for the continuedburning of fossil fuels. The potential impacts fromcontinued fossil fuel use are described in detail inthe transportation section of this paper.But a risk factor completely unique to waste alsoexists: methane production. As a soup of organicmaterials, chemical sludge and slowly decomposing products, landfills let off a lot of gas. The mostcommon landfill gas is methane, which is 25times more effective at atmospheric warming thanCO2 (per molecule), and thus is a commandingcontributor to climate change.Most importantly, if Lopezians continue currentwaste disposal practices they will lose the opportunity for re-using these increasingly valuableresources. As the impacts of climate change beginto affect rainfall patterns on Lopez, greywater (suchas the treated water from the Fisherman Bay Sewage District) may prove to be an essential resourcefor agricultural irrigation. This need may be compounded as rising average temperatures increasethe need to irrigate crops. Landfill gases, such asmethane, could become a valuable input for onisland energy production in the face of potentiallydecreased hydropower from the mainland.

79

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

[waste]Numerous waste cycles on Lopez Island offer easy opportunities to close resource loops. The potential solutions will focus on 6 projects to do just this:Recommend Go for Implementation:1) Localize the waste collection system2) Collect and distribute treated sewage waterRecommend Further Research:3) Centralize the collection of organic matter and production of compostRecommend Hold at this Time:(1) Localize the waste disposal site4) Capitalize on landfill biogases5) Utilize sewage solids to generate compost6) Harvest energy from sewage and yard clipping incineration

80

LOCALIZE THE WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM AND DISPOSAL SITE:

CREATE A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ON LOPEZ TO RE-LOCALIZE THE COLLECTION

SYSTEM AND SITE A LOCAL LANDFILL

Re-localizing the waste collection system offers the opportunity to utilize existing infrastructures and reducetransportation costs. A source-separated garbage and recycling system (rather than co-mingled) could putthe baler at the Lopez Transfer station back into use compacting plastics and aluminum, thereby reducing theoverall volume for shipment. Sorted recyclables could be sold directly to the recycler, with the income directlysupporting the local collection system. In addition, the creation of a local landfill would reduce the quantity ofwaste that must be shipped off of the island. Curbside pickup need not be part of the local solid waste disposal district, as the island demographics and geography would require a collection system that inefficiently usesenergy and labor.PROS

> Lopez does not currently own the rights to retain itssolid waste, due to a long term contract between SanJuan County and Waste Management Company, andtherefore cannot re-route waste into a local landfill.> A social dispute may arise from attempting to locatean acceptable on-island site.

FINANCIAL COSTS / CONSIDERATIONS

> Ongoing costs of administration, probably in the form of a tax. Proposal as of Feb 2012: $100,000 tax ($0.08 / $1000of valuation).> Capital costs of obtaining additional infrastructure> Capital costs of land acquisition (for citing the landfill).

Local Collection Systems Recommendation: GO

environmentalsustainability

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Local Landfill Recommendation: HOLD

environmentalsustainability

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Due to positive environmental impacts of on-island

compacting, the local support of creating alocal solid waste collection system, and the potential job generation, we recommend that Lopezianspass the proposal to implement a $100,000 tax forthe creation of a Lopez Solid Waste Disposal Dis-

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

trict. However, because of the long-term contract

with Waste Management Company and the socialchallenges of citing an on-island landfill, we do notrecommend that Lopezians pursue the creation ofan on-island landfill at this time.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

81

Implementation:Take Back the Dump, a local activist group, hasalready done much of the work toward implementing this option. As of the writing of this paper, theyhave gathered 1,200 signatures to levy a $100,000tax implementation proposal on the next ballot,specifically for the creation of a Lopez Solid WasteDisposal District. The $100,000 reflects approximately $0.08 / $1000 of valuation. If this passes,the next steps are to hire the necessary labor tomanage the re-activated sorting and baling systemat the existing transfer station.

It is recommended that curbside pickup remain

an option provided by private services to thosewho desire it rather than as part of the local solidwaste disposal district. The island demographicsand geography simply are not suited for an energyand labor efficient system. Furthermore, it wouldrequire additional infrastructure and labor, whichwould cost additional capital.

COLLECT AND DISTRIBUTE TREATED SEWAGE WATER FROM THE FISHERMAN

BAY SEWAGE DISTRICT FOR USE IN SELECT CROP IRRIGATION

The discharged water from the Fisherman Bay sewage district offers a particularly easy loop to close, becausethe infrastructure is almost completely in place already. The treatment facility currently collects and treats400-500 thousand gallons of water each month; the next step is to divert the discharge into a storage tank anddistributing it to farms via truck. While not potable, this water is suitable for agricultural irrigation (except rootcrops) and landscape needs.PROS

CONS

> A free source of water; the treatment facility is

already in full operation discharging treated waterinto the ocean> Could benefit crops that require more irrigation thanprovided by the Lopez rainshed.> Could promote the expansion of agriculture on Lopez

> If poorly maintained, there is a slim chance that the

treated water could contaminate the groundwater.> Potential for pharmaceutical chemical contaminationin the ecosystem

Recommendation: GOBecause the water is already treated to a levelsuitable for most irrigation, and the limits of theLopez rain-shed prohibit certain crop irrigationrequirements, collecting the discharge from thetreatment facility offers a natural source of neededagricultural inputs. With climate change promisingto affect rain patterns possibly reducing overallrainfall, or simply altering the timing of distribution this solution provides a the opportunity for building island resilience. For these reasons, we highlyrecommend that this option be taken into strongconsideration.Implementation:The needs to implement this option are straightforward: purchase and assemble storage capacity,determine the distribution model, and purchasethe infrastructure necessary for the desired distribution model. But the first step must be communicating with existing and potential farmers aboutthe desire and potential demand for this water.The precise storage capacity needs largely dependupon the frequency of distribution. The system currently treats approximately 16-34 thousand gallonsper day (winter and summer). This would requiretwo 20,000 gallon storage tanks or one 50,000gallon if the water were distributed daily, or moreif the water were distributed less frequently. Theprice per 20,000-gallon tank varies depending onmaterial, from $12,500 for fiberglass, to $18,750for plastic, to around $20,000 for a new stainlesssteel tank. Thus the costs of tanks required for storing daily treated water discharge ranges anywherefrom $25,000 (for two 20,000-gallon fiberglasstanks) to $280,000 (for fourteen 20,000-gallonstainless steel tanks).

ibility of constructing a subsurface piping system

to far reaching islands, this distribution method isnot recommended. Trucking water from the treatment plant to farming facilities would require thepurchase of one or two 4500 gallon trucks, depending on how many load deliveries are possible anddesired each day. This, of course, would requireadditional operating expenses for the maintenanceof the truck, fuel and labor.Constructing an aqueduct system from the treatment facility may present a viable alternative totrucking that would simultaneously serve storageand distribution needs, and allow for greater flexibility than submerged piping. A single aqueductexiting from the facility and branching north andsouth along Center Street may serve to reach alarge number of farms. Water from the treatmentfacility could be continually discharged directly intothe aqueduct and siphoned off into on-farm storage ponds as needed by the farmers. Excess watercould either be contained in storage tanks or allowed to discharge into the ocean.Tests for pharmaceutical chemicals, heavy metals,etc. should also be considered in order to addressconcerns about water quality and contamination, aswell as investigation into the metabolic impact andbreakdown of these contaminants in the ecosystem.

There are essentially three types of distribution systems for water: roadways (truck), independent surface transport (aqueducts), or subsurface transport(pipes). Because of labor costs and limited flex-

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

83

CENTRALIZE THE COLLECTION OF ORGANIC MATTER AND PRODUCTION OF

COMPOST

Options explored for this potential solution include large-scale collection for commercial production and sale,or organizing a compost market for individuals to sell their homemade compost. Given its current use, theexisting Transfer Station offers an ideal location for a centralized collection point, potentially as part of theservices provided by a new Solid Waste Disposal District on Lopez (but equally effective without this new district). A local compost producer could then pick up the collected organic matter and take it to private facilitiesfor compost production. Alternatively, the transfer station could offer a monthly compost exchange, allowingindividual producers to sell compost to the public.PROS

> Increases awareness about soil fertility needs

> Many Lopezians already utilize their organic matter

on their own properties> Informal island culture may not require a central exchange market due to existing neighbor-to-neighborbartering

FINANCIAL COSTS / CONSIDERATIONS

> Capital costs of a collection tank at the transfer station> Capital costs of a compost production facility (varies greatly by size and system type)> Operational Costs: maintenance and laborenvironmentalsustainability

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: RESEARCHFinding a way to produce soil amendments on-island is certainly a crucial step toward becoming resilient to climate change. Generating compost fromorganic waste products is one of the most basicclosed-loop systems, which has been sustainablypracticed globally for millennia. Many respondentsto our survey already utilize organic matter on theirown property, be it a personal home or a farm. Assuch, it is difficult to assess whether or not thereare individuals with enough excess organic matterfor large-scale compost production, or a desire tocontribute what they are currently producing to acentralized system. Furthermore, with the informal

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

unknown

barter culture that thrives on Lopez, chances are

high that neighbor-to-neighbor exchange alreadyoccurs. Therefore, we recommend the collectionof additional data on household organic waste asa first step toward determining the viability of thissolution.

Areas for Further Research:

Because soil fertility is of high concern on Lopez,we recommend that initial steps are taken to assessthe viability of a centralized compost productionsystem. Primarily, additional data on householdorganic waste (both food scraps and yard waste)

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

84

is greatly needed. Without a metric for quantifying the potential volume, it is difficult to assess theeconomics. In addition, a survey regarding localdesire to participate and local demands would behelpful in assessing whether or not a market exists.

Current informal agreements should also be documented. Informal exchanges already exist on theisland, so finding a way to further promote it shouldbe considered in lieu of creating a centralized collection system.

CAPITALIZE ON LANDFILL BIOGASES: CONSTRUCT A BIOGAS COLLECTING

LANDFILL AND ELECTRICITY GENERATING PLANTATION.

The construction of a local landfill-gas collection system and associated electricity generator offers an opportunity to reduce or even eliminate the need to ship waste off island, utilizing it instead to generate local electricity. One model captures landfill-gas and converts it into liquefied natural gas, which can then be combustedto create electricity. Another model is the SMARTFERM dry fermentation system, which stores organic waste,captures the off-gases to generate electricity, and produces in compost.PROS

CONS

> The SMARTFERM system is particularly well suited

for decentralized production of electricity and heat> The SMARTFERM system could also produce compost, and thus serve to carry out potential solution 3.> Small scale does not require much space.> The system may function on local inputs alone, offering an independent on-island source of electricity> Greenhouse gas emission reductions via methanecapture.> Reduced shipping costs. The precise measure depends upon details of the system. If the remaininglandfill waste remains on-island after landfill-gas collection, then transportation costs would be reducedentirely to on-island collection and transport to anon-island landfill.

> Lopez may not produce enough organic waste to

make the SMARTFERM dry fermentation systemviable. SMARTFERM is suited for the treatment ofsubstrates in amounts from approximately 3,000 to3,600 metric tons per year.> The high-methane generating sources of inputs(organic waste) may have other, more desirable onisland uses (such as for animal feed).> Lopez does not currently own the rights to retain itssolid waste, due to a long term contract between SanJuan County and Waste Management Company

FINANCIAL COSTS / CONSIDERATIONS

> Capital costs of constructing plantation. For 4,500 tonnes per year, 100-150 kWe could be produced from a 3,000 sqft plantation. (Costs vary by precise size, location and site conditions)> Operational costs of collection and general maintenance costs. Operational costs could be reduced if the first solutionin this section is also implemented.> Distributional costs for electricityenvironmentalsustainability

dent of off-island inputs. However, neither can be

implemented while Lopezian garbage remains contracted to Waste Management Company, and thusdestined for the landfill in Oregon. Also, unknownconstruction costs are potentially prohibitive. Thuswe do not recommend that Lopez Island pursuethis option at this time.

HARVEST WASTE HEAT FROM SEWAGE AND YARD CLIPPING INCINERATION:

CONSTRUCT A HEAT RECOVERY OR DRY FERMENTATION SYSTEM TO GENERATE

ELECTRICITY

Given that the septic sludge for Lopez is currently burned off-island, and the collected yard waste is burnedon-island, this option provides a way to capture a secondary waste product generated from current disposalpractices: waste heat. A steam generator could turn waste heat into electricity, and the resulting ashes may beused as a compost additive.PROS

CONS

> The system may function on local inputs alone, offering an independent on-island source of electricity> Reduced shipping costs.> By capturing the waste-heat produced by currentburn practices, this option generates useful energyout of an existing CO2 source. While CO2 emissionsremain a concern, this option at least generates additional utility from existing emissions sources.> Internalizing the incineration offers the opportunityto install CO2 scrubbers or another emission reduction technology on the outgas housing.

> Lopez likely does not produce enough septic sludge

and yard waste to generate an adequate quantity ofelectricity from waste heat to provide meaningfulpower.> At least one company, MR Buffum Sand and GravelCo., already capitalizes on yard waste for otherrevenue-generating activities. Depending upon howthis was implemented it could negatively impact thatbusiness.

FINANCIAL COSTS / CONSIDERATIONS

> Capital costs of constructing plantation.> Operational costs of collection and general maintenance costs. Operational costs could be reduced if Lopez Islanddecided to localize its waste collection.> Distributional costs for electricityenvironmentalsustainability

potentially prohibitive capital costs for initial construction. We recommend that Lopez Island evaluate construction costs, and that it considers thissolution for construction if the economics becomefavorable.

UTILIZE SEWAGE SOLIDS TO GENERATE COMPOST: COLLECT SEPTIC SLUDGE AND

CONSTRUCT A PROCESSING FACILITY FOR COMPOST PRODUCTION.

A private contractor currently pumps septic sludge out of individual septic tanks, the lightest water is siphonedoff at the Fisherman Bay Sewage District treatment facility, and the remaining solids are shipped off island forincineration. These solids could instead be kept on-island and turned into compost for select crops.

FINANCIAL COSTS / CONSIDERATIONS

Recommendation: HOLDBecause of the prevalence for organic farming techniques on Lopez island, which does not allow theuse of human compost, compounded with generalpublic discomfort, this option is not recommended.However, it should be considered in the future in

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

the very least for use on non-edible landscaping.

Additionally, whether or not this process wouldresult in a net reduction of CO2 emissions is unknown, because compost also emits CO2 andmethane.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

87

Heating greenhouses with compost waste-heat

Scott Meyers of Sweet Grass Farms raises Wagyu,

Kobe style beef. Scott holds a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing theagriculture sector on Lopez. He embodies the typeof forward thinking necessary to ensure the longterm viability of farming on Lopez. Scott envisions awaste heated greenhouse that will increase resource efficiency through a more closed loop farming system. Currently, he composts manure, resulting in large piles of mixed manure and hay that arebroken down for soil fertility. Scott envisions capturing the waste heat from the compost in order toheat a simple greenhouse. This simple, yet elegantprocess will allow farmers to grow a greater varietyof vegetables through the cold winter season andto start seeds earlier in the season.

This solution for utilizing otherwise environmentally harmful methane promises environmentalefficiency, economic efficiency due to the free heatsource, and supports increased food production bypermitting growing in the off season. Moreover theholistic approach to farm management minimizesthe products considered to be waste on a farm. Thesimplicity of the greenhouse model means that theproject is easily scalable and replicable in any farming system with or in proximity to cattle. Scott emphasized his commitment to sharing this knowledgeand technology openly, meaning it has the potentialto transform systems at home on Lopez as well asthose far removed from the island.

88

CONCLUDING REMARKS[waste]Lopez Island has many opportunities to improvewaste streams and close resource loops in the nearterm, and for a relatively low expense. The positiveenvironmental impacts and economic benefits oflocalizing trash collection management and compacting trash and recyclables on-island are undeniable and with few side effects. The distributionof treated sewage water from the Fisherman Baysewage district may promote additional irrigationfarming that would otherwise be impossible due toLopez Islands low rainfall.While several other potential solutions may not befeasible for realization before 2025, they shouldcertainly remain under consideration for futureimplementation. In particular, once the contractwith Waste Management expires, Lopezians shouldconsider putting their waste to further on-islanduse before its ultimate disposal.

89

Electricity & Heating

Delivering electricity and other energy sources to

islands is expensive, often carbon-intensive, andincreases dependence on external resources. Asan Island, Lopez relies heavily on the mainland forthe majority of its electricity and heating needs. Tobecome a more resilient and self-sustaining community, Lopez needs to take advantage of severalsignificant electricity and heating opportunitiespresent on the island: 1) Lopez has the potential tosignificantly improve energy efficiencies in the commercial and household sectors and 2) Lopez shoulddevelop renewable energy sources to help meetelectricity and heating demands. In the early 20thcentury, Lopez sustainably managed local resourcesto produce the majority of its energy needs. By re-

lying less on the mainland in the future, Lopez can

develop as a sustainable and resilient community.The Electricity and Heating section begins with anoutline of current practices in the electricity andheating sectors on the island, then describes whatchallenges and risks may impact the island in thefuture. From existing reports and data collectedthrough interviews with OPALCO, Sage EnergySolutions, and other stakeholders, the next sectionexplores possible solutions, weighing their pros andcons, and costs when possible. Readers will findinformation on broader policy options for OPALCO,San Juan County, and the State of Washington, aswell as a primer on Lopezs local energy resources,in Appendix 3.

CURRENT PRACTICES[electricity and heating]STATE OF THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR

Electricity SupplyLopez relies on OPALCO, a non-profit memberowned utility, for the production of electricity andfor its interconnection to the grid on the mainland.OPALCO contracts with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and relies on BPAs power mix. In2010, OPALCO signed a 20-year contract with BPA.The new contract includes a two-tiered rate structure that guarantees OPALCO a certain amount oflow price electricity at Tier I pricing ($29.22/MWh

or $0.02922/kWh) mainly from hydropower, until

a demand ceiling is reached. At that point, powerwill be purchased by BPA and sold to OPALCO atmarket rates to meet the additional demand (TierII). In addition to being greatly more expensivethan the Tier I pricing, Tier II power will be subjectto available sources, meaning that the clean fuelfix that OPALCO has benefited from will no longerbe guaranteed or likely. At the current electricity demand growth rate of 1 percent per year, it isestimated that OPALCO will enter into Tier II pricing by 2014 [83]. Even without entering into theTier II pricing structure, electricity costs are rising.In 2012, BPA increased wholesale electricity costsby 8 percent, requiring OPALCO to raise tariffs by 3percent (effective March 2012) to balance the 2012budget [83].Nearly 75 percent of OPALCOs costs are in theoperation and maintenance of the distribution system, representing about $12 million in annual fixedcosts. OPALCO regains only about 37 percent ofthese fixed costs through the basic service charge($26.25/mo for residential and $36.00/mo for commercial). The remainder is recouped through thedemand charge paid by commercial customers andthe energy charge ($0.781 cents/kwh) for all customers [85]. This current structure serves to promote energy savings and to make electrical servicemore affordable for low income and low consumption families. However this also means that homesthat are vacant during the winter months (about 41percent on Lopez) that are contributing to wintertime peaks (freeze control is typically set at 50degrees) are likely paying less for their service thanit costs to provide it. Year-round residents are effectively subsidizing the electricity costs of seasonallyoccupied homes.

91

Renewables in SupplyHigh precipitation and large elevation changesmakes the Pacific Northwest a highly productive hydroelectric power generator, producing 80 percentof the regions electricity. Hydroelectric generatorsat the dams on the Columbia River supply 75 percent of OPALCOs electricity. (Figure 8) [84].Washington State is currently considering whetherhydropower should be classified as renewable.The states renewable energy law Initiative 937,approved by voters in 2006 does not includehydropower as a renewable energy source [86].Although hydropower has no air quality impacts,construction and operation of hydropower damscan significantly affect natural river systems aswell as fish and wildlife populations. In addition todisrupting the flow of rivers, water at the bottomof the lake created by a dam is often inhospitableto fish because it is much colder and oxygen-poorcompared to typical ecosystem conditions. Whencold, oxygen-poor water is released, it can kill fishdownstream used to warmer, oxygenated water. Fi-

nally, to store energy, dams withhold water and release it at once when power is needed- this causesthe downstream river to suddenly swell, disruptingplant and wildlife and potentially drinking watersupplies [87].If a large amount of vegetation is growing alongthe riverbed when a dam is built, it can decay inthe lake that is created, causing the buildup andrelease of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Thisis a significant issue in the construction of dams intropical areas. Because the dams on the Columbiawere built many years ago and biomass in the areais relatively low compared to the tropics, resultingmethane emissions would have been limited at thetime of construction and negligible today [87]. Theelectricity generated from hydropower is thereforevirtually carbon-free [86].Other renewables in the OPALCO supply include 2percent wind, 0.22 percent biomass and 0.13 percent generated from waste. OPALCO estimates that

the electricity supplied to its members is 90 percent Greenhouse Gas (GHG) free on average. Thisdoes not mean however, that energy conservationis not an important issue in the region. Every kWhof low GHG electricity saved, means it can be usedelsewhere in the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) system and replace a kWh of fossil fuelgenerated electricity. This means that more peoplecan benefit from clean power and that less naturalgas or coal plants will have to be used or constructed to meet electricity needs.

Incentive Programs for Renewables

Currently there are many attractive incentives todeveloping the renewable energy supply in Washington State. The Washington State Renewable Energy Production Incentives program began in 2006and provides up to $5,000 per year per householdfor the production of energy on the grid by solarthermal electric, photovoltaics, wind, and anaerobic digestion. The State will provide between$0.12/kWh and $1.08/kWh to the individual producer through June 2020, depending on the project, technology and the origin of the equipment. In2009, legislation passed to allow community solarprojects of up to 75 kW to benefit from the incentive. Under the law, each participant in the projectcan apply to receive up to the maximum of $5,000/year. However the available program funding isextremely limited 0.5 percent of utility revenueor $100,000 is allocated to the incentives, which results in $5,000 for OPALCO and other small utilities.Therefore the economic feasibility of communityrenewable energy projects on Lopez is extremelylimited with current funding levels [88].MORE ProgramIn addition to statewide incentives programs, OPALCOs MORE program offers support for the installation of photovoltaics at the household level. Morethan 60 OPALCO customers currently sell locallygenerated renewable energy back to the grid. Topromote member investment in renewable energy,MORE offers incentives for annual kilowatt-hours,which are fixed for ten years.Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

MORE also allows OPALCO customers to pay a

premium for renewable energy in a number of different ways. Residents can pay $4 per street block,choose a higher monthly donation amount, ordonate to the MORE Programs general fund (MOREbrochure). MORE also offers a Superhero levelthat applies a four-cent premium per kilowatt-hourto all energy use.Currently, 450 of OPALCOs 13,000 customersparticipate in the MORE program in some capacity. This low participation rate is static, and typicalwhen compared to national voluntary renewableenergy programs. The Free Rider problem impactsits success most people are not interested in participating in voluntary programs that provide littleindividual benefit and only contribute to the collective good without guarantees that most others willcontribute as well.

Energy Efficiency Programs

Energy efficiency programs in partnership with BPAand its public utility customers have saved over1,100 aMW across its service area (aMW = averageMW, equivalent to 8760 MWh) since the passageof the 1980 Northwest Power Act [83]. OPALCOcontinues to promote efficiency through rebateprograms (appliance, windows and insulation) asthe easiest and most economical way to addressgrowing energy needs.According to a 2009 NRECA survey, the vast majority of members believe OPALCO is actively addressing energy efficiency and conservation (85 percent)as well as renewable energy (79 percent). Nearlyall (91 percent) rate the benefit of offering energyefficiency programs as 4 or 5 on a 5-point scaleof benefits (NRECA survey 2009). The survey foundthat 28 percent of respondents are willing to pay 10to 15 percent more per month to support OPALCOsrenewable energy generation and energy efficiencyprograms.

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

93

OPALCO also offers members home energy assessments through their Snapshot Program. Customerscan receive a comprehensive energy estimatefor their home that would otherwise cost $150 foronly $25. Local energy efficiency and home performance contractors conduct snapshot assessmentsand offer additional services, including free lightbulb replacement with CFLs and installing low-flowshowerheads. Thus far, 250 out of 13,000 homeshave participated in the assessment.

STATE OF NON-ELECTRICITY SOURCE

HEATINGPropaneA total of 321,872.6 gallons of Propane were soldon Lopez Island in 2011 (see Figure 10).

Figure 9: Amount Willing to Pay to Support OPALCOs

Renewable Generation/Conservation ProgramsSOURCE: NRECA Survey

About 18 percent of San Juan County residents use

propane as a primary heat source, and 29 percentuse it to provide part of their heating needs (Figure11). The cost of propane on the Island is significant,as each gallon must be transported by barge from

Figure 10: 2011 Propane Sales on Lopez

SOURCE: San Juan Propane

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

94

the mainland (See Transportation Section). When

the new Lopez Village Market was constructed,propane heaters were installed. The Lopez VillageMarket spends between $600 and $1,000 everyweek in propane costs; propane expenses can be asmuch as a quarter of the stores energy expenses[89]. Owner Aaron Dye estimates that since switching to propane heaters, the Lopez Village Marketspends twice as much on heating as when the market relied on electricity [90].

BiomassThe other major heating source in San Juan County,is biomass: 29 percent of households use wood asa primary heating source and 48 percent use it toprovide some of their heating needs.Biomass SupplyBiomass accounts for 29 percent of primary spaceheating sources in San Juan County. Lopez Islandhas significant biomass resources. According toTim Clark of the Agricultural Resource Committee,Lopez has about 6,500 acres of forests, coveringapproximately 22 percent of total land area. Thisequates to about 3 acres of forested land on Lopezper person. In comparison, about 7,000 acres are

pastureland. To heat the average home on Lopez (<

2000 square feet) requires about 2 cords of woodper year.In the 1920s, loggers, homebuilders, and otherindustries clearcut 90 percent of Lopez Islands forest, with 80 percent of stumps uprooted, removingvaluable nutrients from the soil. The original composition of the forest on Lopez would have includedmaples, oaks, and cedars; today, the forest onLopez is primarily Douglas Firs [91]. Zack Blomberg,agroforestry expert, believes that the forests on theIsland are currently in poor health. The Departmentof Natural Resources defines forest productivity inGrades 1 to 5, in descending order, with grades 1and 2 being the most productive (indices of 118135 feet and 136+ feet, respectively). Forests in SanJuan Country are graded 3 to 5, or are consideredpoor or very poor, whereas forests in mainlandWashington are rated good (2) and superior (1)[87]. Additional grades are not suitable for DouglasFir, but can support other species, notably red alder(see Figure 12). Mr. Blomberg believes that withcareful management (controlled burns, replanting,and the removal of diseased specimens) the forestscould return to a healthy resource.

Figure 11:Heat Sources in San Juan CountySOURCE: OPALCO Survey 2009

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- --

95

While there are countywide management plans for

Agriculture, Marine Resources and Waste, there isno county-wide management plan for Forests. Anew taxation assessment scheme (similar to the taxscheme for agricultural land) will put pressure onland tracts larger than 20 acres with forest designation to be more productive in terms of commercial harvest. This could lead to the clear-cutting offorests every 20-30 years so landowners can continue to benefit from the tax break.Currently, construction debris and wood scraps aredumped at Lopez Sand and Gravel, forming what isreferred to on the Island as the Pile. Owner M.R.Buffum estimates that 500 dump truck loads of 10cubic yards is dumped at Lopez Sand and Gravel ev-

ery year and that two-thirds of the pile is eventually

burned. This means that about 3,000 cubic metersof wood are burned every year. As explained in theAgricultural section of this report, Lopez Sand andGravel salvages a portion of this resource by mulching. Because The Pile includes roots that maycontain rocks and other wood debris, only a portionof the wood may be processed this way. What Lopez Sand and Gravel cannot salvage economically,they burn yearly in an open wood fire large enoughto emit about 1.8 million pounds of CO2. Mr. Buffum feels that there is a possibility that burning theresource may no longer be allowed in several years,and at that time he will have to consider an alternative.

Rick StrachanMost everybody knows about my wind turbine.Its kind of hard to hide it. At the Conditional UsePermit hearing in 2009, there were over 100 peoplein attendance; 19 people testified in favor of it,and the hope and good energy expressed thatday will stay with me forever. One guy said to meafterwards, I feel like Ive just been to church! Ittook a long time to get to that hearing: 550 days ofdifficult slogging through the hurdles of the Countygovernment just to get a hearing. But in the end, Igot my permit. Living up to the evident high hopesand good wishes of the Lopezians was almost asstressful for me as dealing with the County.

I moved to Lopez Island because of two hur-

ricanes at the other end of the country. Rita and

Katrina were extremely damaging events for mySouth Louisiana family. I was deeply shocked by thefailure of the government to respond effectively onany level at all. I was living in Portland, Oregon, acity bisected by a river, and I knew that if a comparable event occurred in that city, it would be almostimpossible to survive. I had to get to a more viablelocation, so I moved north to Lopez Island to get toa place where I could put my long-held dreams ofliving a more resilient and aware life into practice.I came here specifically to build a house that couldgenerate all its own energy, to grow a lot of myown food and live in a community that could have abetter chance to thrive in uncertain times that arecertain to be full of challenges and tough choices.The challenges I have faced so far seem, predictably in retrospect, to have come from completelyunanticipated directions.

During the 550 days that it took to get to that CUP

hearing, a period of time that was over 41 percentof the length of time between Pearl Harbor in 1941and the surrender of Japan in 1945, I had plenty oftime to reflect on both the State policy regardingrenewable energy as expressed in RCW 80.60.005which says:

The legislature finds it is in the public interest to:

> Encourage private investment in renewableenergy resources;Stimulate the economic growth of this state;and> Enhance the continued diversification of theenergy resources used in this state. [1998 c318 1.]and the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan,which says:

2.2.C EnergyGoal: To conserve energy and promote energy efficiency. Policies (2.2.C.1-2)1) Promote education on site planning methods that make maximum use of energy-saving features of the natural environment.2) Provide opportunities within land usedesignations for the development and useof alternative energy resources which arecompatible with the natural environment.

97

and think about the disconnect between those

brave words and the inability of the governmentsto respond or act on their very own words. Id seenthat before.The citizens of Lopez Island are way ahead of theirgovernment in thinking and planning for a futurethat is safe, sustainable, caring and thoughtful. MyCUP documents cost over a thousand dollars a pageto prepare, and they are freely available to anyonewho wants to use them as a template for threadingthe many needle eyes of County regulations.Actualizing my dreams here has been, and is, verydifficult, but is becoming more rewarding. It has required much more tenacity and persistence than Iwas expecting. It helps to be much better preparedthan the opposition; fortune favors the bold.For me, the enduring lesson of the Louisiana hurricanes was that a strong local community that iswell-prepared and proactive in facing the futurewill be much more important than any government in responding to shocking events and caringfor itself in times of trouble. Its a lot more fun andhopeful to live in a community like that; this is myhome now.

98

POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS AND RISKS FACTORS

[electricity and heating]This section addresses potential economic, environmental and operational threats to Lopezs current heat and

electricity consumption patterns. The effects of climate change, increased demand for electricity, and uncertainty about future energy costs and contracts create an unsteady future for Lopez if the current electricity andheating practices continue into the year 2025.

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Electricity rates on Lopez have historically been low,

but as hydropower becomes less reliable becauseof the intensification and variability of weather dueto climate change, this paradigm may shift [92].With 75 percent of OPALCOs electricity supply being serviced by hydroelectric generators, there is asignificant risk of higher and more volatile energyprices. There may also be a small risk of servicedisruptions if reserve generation capacity is unableto make up for hydropower shortfalls in periods oflow rainfall.Severe weather patterns caused by climate changewill increase infrastructure damage worldwide.Because 82 percent of OPALCOs 1,146 miles ofpower lines are underground, OPALCO is largelyprotected from this risk [84]. The severe rains andextreme weather of 2011 tested OPALCOs distribution system, which, according to an OPALCO boardmember, fared well during the stormy weather[83]. Phil Irwin, President and CEO of Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, reported that whilethe number of insurance claims are decreasing yearafter year, the severity of claims is at an all timehigh [93]. Expenses related to infrastructure repairand insurance costs will only increase as the effectsof climate change become more pronounced.

INCREASED DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY

Electricity rates have remained low in the Pacific

Northwest, due to the bounty of hydropower. Asgreenhouse gas standards and renewable portfoliostandards become stricter in surrounding states,the demand for low carbon electricity sources will

increase. This increase in demand may drive up the

price of hydropower for utilities like OPALCO whenthe current contract expires.

FLEXIBILITY OF HYDROPOWER

The Northwests hydroelectric generators are technically a tremendously flexible resource however,in order to protect downstream environments andhuman safety this flexibility is limited by regulation. Salmon ecosystem protection in Columbia andSnake rivers and the increasing amount of flexibility that is needed to make up for the intermittentpower production from renewables, such as wind[92] make up the significant limitations on what isotherwise an easily dispatchable resource. If protection of salmon populations is increased, the flexibility of the system may be further compromised,leading utilities to look elsewhere for dispatchablegeneration capacity, often with natural gas turbines.Currently, BPA has 6,500 MW of wind generatingcapacity. This is expected to rise to about 10,000MW by 2020, which will make load balancing withhydropower difficult. Because of excess rainfallin 2011, BPA was required to order wind powercurtailments so that it could prevent its reservoirsfrom swelling to unsafe levels [94].

CONTRACTS AND FUTURE ENERGY

RATES

If the current electricity demand growth rate continues at 1 percent, OPALCO will reach Tier 2 pricing by 2014 [83]. This means that marginal energy99

above the Tier 1 limit will be purchased at spot

market prices. Last minute purchasing of energycould result in purchases of electricity several timesmore expensive than current rates.

source, and 48 percent for some of their heating

needs. Propane follows suit with 18 percent and 29percent, and heating oil is used 6 percent and 10percent respectively.

In addition, OPALCOs contract with BPA is due to

expire in 2028. After this time it is uncertain whether OPALCO will renew the contract or obtain othersources of energy.

Homes reliant on propane for heating may see

prices rise dramatically. Increased petroleum priceswould increase the operating costs of transportingthe fuel to the island as well as the cost of its production. Furthermore, if forests are not managedproperly, the quality and value of this traditionalheating source may decline. Impacts of climatechange on Lopez Islands forests are not certain butmay be significant.

NON-ELECTRICITY HEATING SOURCES

Propane, wood and heating oil are three alternative heat sources. Wood is most common, with 29percent of Lopezians using it as a primary heating

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- -- 100

Community SolarCommunities across the country are consideringCommunity Solar Gardens- centralized PV installations that allow individuals otherwise unable toinstall their own system to benefit from a clean,local renewable resource. Community Solar gardens are ideal for small and medium scale arraysinstalled on large rooftops or otherwise unusableland.In 2006, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation and Washington State Universitys NorthwestSolar Center helped build one of first CommunitySolar Projects in the United States in Ellensburg,Washington. The Ellensburg Community RenewablePark installation has grown from 26 kW to 141 kW.Members of the Community Renewable Park receive a proportional share of the production basedon their initial investment in the project. The valueof the energy produced is credited on their electricbills every three months for a period of 20 years.Each contributor also receives state solar production incentive 0f $0.30 per kWh per year until 2020.

Seattle, in partnership with City Light and Seattle

Parks and Recreation, is installing Community Solaron three new picnic shelters in Jefferson Park. Eachsolar unit is being sold for $600. Participants willreceive a billing credit at a rate of $0.07 for eachkWh generated by their solar unit(s) (about 50kWh per solar unit, per year). Participants are alsoeligible to receive the Washington State RenewableEnergy Production Incentive annually through Juneof 2020, offering up to an additional $1.08 per kWh,and a credit of $54.00 per unit, per year. It is estimated that participants will likely recoup most oftheir enrollment fee by June 2020.University Park Community Solar (UPCS) in Maryland, took on 35 investors from $2,000 to $15,000to fund a $130,000 PV installation and set up apower purchasing agreement (PPA) where a localchurch buys the generation from the system for 20years at a rate slightly lower than the utility rate.The utility pays the group for any excess generationfed back to the grid.

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

[electricity and heating]While the potential solutions and recommendations in this section adhere to the Lopez-scale scope of our

report, because many of the substantial transformations needed to improve the islands resilience and environmental sustainability will come about as a result of county, state, and utility policies. As such, we present inAppendix 1 to explore these broader policy recommendations.This section outlines recommendations at the local level that could improve the resilience of the electricityand heating supply on Lopez, with an attention to those that are also environmentally sustainable and fit withthe culture and traditions on the island. First, we highlight existing local opportunities on the island that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy generation. By taking advantage of local programs that currentlyhave low participation rates, Lopezians can do their part to slow the growth of electricity demand and keepOPALCOs fuel mix as clean and inexpensive as possible.

Recommend Go for Implementation:

1) Create an energy interest group2) Participate in OPALCOs MORE program3) Conduct a solar resource site assessment4) Take advantage of energy efficiency snapshots from OPALCO5) Use available financing for energy efficiency improvements6) Conserve energy and shift usage away from peak hours

102

CREATE AN ENERGY INTEREST GROUP

Energy is an important topic around which to rally a community, school, or island. Lopezians should considerorganizing groups at any of these levels to educate about the possibilities of energy efficiency and promoteimprovements. Have members of the group sign up for OPOWER on Facebook, which automatically accessesa persons electricity data and compares it to similar sized households nearby. At the end of 2012, householdreal-time energy consumption data from OPALCO will be available online. Take advantage of this informationby creating public art projects (see Tidy Street), sharing with neighbors, or creating friendly competitions forenergy reduction in the home, in the neighborhood, or even inter-island competition (refer to vignette Common Ground to see how tracking energy use can decrease consumption). Renewable energy system owners,professionals, and other interested parties could also form an on-island or countywide organization to facilitateand improve RE interest and development.PROS>>>>

CONS> Requires time/ organization- an energy champion

Contributes to community building

An activity every age-level can participate inSaves money, low costHelps keep others on track to reach their EE goals

environmentalsustainability

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: GOImplementation:Identify a local organization to champion theEnergy Superstar program. Establish a month tofocus on energy efficiency, possibly April becauseof Earth Day. Create a school project to monitorhome energy use and report back, like the TidyStreet example in the United Kingdom (Tidystreet.org). Increase civic awareness so the reward andrecognition for participating in the program hashigher social value. OPALCOs options for energy efficiency and renewables are excellent, but requiremore community buy-in.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- -- 103

PARTICIPATE IN OPALCOS MORE PROGRAM

OPALCO members on Lopez can contribute towards the development of local renewable energy sources in SanJuan County by participating in the MORE program. Members for whom a solar PV or other renewable energysystem of their own is not an option can pay into a fund that supports small scale renewable energy projectsin the OPALCO area. Participation rates remain low, but the potential is attractive. By increasing participationrates substantially, Lopezians can dramatically increase the amount of funding available to support local renewable energy. At significantly higher levels of participation, the MORE fund could evolve into a more dynamicresource and could support more than just single-member small-scale projects. Table (X) shows the fundraisingpotential of the MORE program in its current incarnation.As an OPALCO program, a MORE funder on Lopez is just as likely to be funding renewable energy generation onany other OPALCO serviced island in the archipelago than for the funding to support projects on Lopez. However, there is virtually no difference in the impact of a kilowatt-hour generated anywhere on the OPALCO gridon the electricity delivered to Lopez residents.Table 3: MORE Program Potential for San Juan County. SOURCE: OPALCOParticipation

1 Block

2 Blocks

4 Blocks

8 Blocks

10 Blocks

Full

Monthly Contribution ($/mo)

$4.00

$8.00

$16.00

$32.00

$40.00

MORE E. Contribution ($/kWh) -

$0.04

Avg. Res. Utility Bill w/ MORE

$103

$107

$115

$131

$139

$138

Diff. from Avg. Bill w/o MORE

$4

$8

$16

$32

$40

$39

MORE fund revenue ($/mo.):

at 5% Participation

$2,504

$5,008

$10,017

$20,034

$25,042

$24,259

at 10% Participation

$5,008

$10,017

$20,034

$40,067

$50,084

$48,517

at 25% Participation

$12,521

$25,042

$50,084

$100,168

$125,210

$121,293

at 100% Participation

$50,084

$100,168

$200,336

$400,672

$500,840

$485,171

PROS

CONS

> Facilitates local assistance for local generation

> Increases share of member energy payments returning to OPALCO membership> Members without access to sites with good resourcecan help those who do> At high participation rates small individual contributions can make big changesenvironmentalsustainability

Welcome -- Transportation --

> With weaker resource, funds invested in local generation can have less impact on overall energy economythan the same investment elsewhere

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- -- 104

Recommendation: GOImplementation:Based on the above review of the MORE programspros and cons, we suggest this recommendationbe implemented immediately. Island residentsshould pressure for opt-out as the default option for MORE program participation (see OPALCOrecommendation section in Appendix 1 for details).

Lopezians should also organize public-facing events

to increase program participation. The island canalso identify local businesses that want to supportMORE possibly by offering store discounts forMORE members, or other exclusive options.

CONDUCT A SOLAR RESOURCE SITE ASSESSMENT

For any family on Lopez that owns their home or has access to install a rooftop or small-scale photovoltaicsystem, determining the feasibility and weighing the costs and benefits of installing a PV system with site anduse specific information is an important first step. Many homes and businesses on Lopez have good access tothe solar resource. Many solar system installers offer free or low cost site assessments to help potential consumer-producers make informed choices about solar energy. Contacting a professional is probably the easiestway to learn and explore the renewable energy options available. Other resources are also available to aid inthe exploration and development of home-scale RE projects. One excellent tool is the HOMER energy modeling software program developed by the National Renewable Energy Lab, now distributed by HOMER Energy atwww.homerenergy.com.PROS

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EE SNAPSHOTS FROM OPALCO

Providing meaningful information to consumers will help them make informed choices about their energysources and uses. For many homeowners, there are substantial economic opportunities in EE improvementsand conservation. An energy audit, conducted by an expert, can provide a resident with the information theyneed to efficiently exploit those opportunities. A home energy assessment is the first step to determining howmuch energy a home consumes and where savings may lie in the household. The professional assessmentoffered by OPALCO is only $25 and offers free light bulb replacement and low-flow showerhead installation. Replacing two standard light bulbs with efficient CFLs pays back the $25 assessment fee in one year in electricitysavings. The snapshot identifies other problem areas in the home where energy- and dollars- may be escapingfrom the home. Start an energy efficiency club by sending around a sign-up sheet. Start a neighborhood energy-efficiency transformation competition. This is an excellent opportunity to ensure that homes are performingas they should. Currently only 250 out of 13,000 homes in the county have participated on the island [84].PROS

CONS

> Identifies key areas in the home where energy is being lost/wasted> Cost can be instantly recuperated with simple, freeupgrades that come with the audit> Larger problem areas will be identified and prioritized by the auditors for homeowners further actionenvironmental

> Necessary to schedule an appointment, have privacy

invaded> Some updates suggested to make significant improvements may be unacceptable/too costly (i.e.,reframing the house to improve the R value).

cultural

resilience &

sustainability

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: GOImplementation:Same as implementation for conducting a solar resource site assessment.

USE AVAILABLE FINANCING FOR ENERGY EFRICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS

After participating in the OPALCO energy snapshot program, residents will have a prioritized list of recommendations for improving the efficiency of their home and reducing their electricity bills.Islanders Bank offers a Small Home Improvement loan program that can be applied to energy efficiency orrenewable energy projects. The small loans offered ($2,000-10,000) have a 5-year interest rate of 4.5 percentor a 10 year interest rate of 5 percent, with a $100 documentation fee. It is likely that for many homes, someefficiency improvements will realize a net economic profit to the energy consumer over the long run. Loan

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- -- 106

financing helps those who cannot afford the upfront costs of these improvements. By paying back the loan asthe savings are realized, lower-income families have easier access to the EE improvements possible savings andincreased comfort.Table 4:Available Financing Examples.SOURCE: Islanders Bank

PROS

CONS

> Local, low-interest rate loan

> As improvements are made, savings are instantlygenerated that can immediately be returned to payinterest on the loan> Savings continue year after yearenvironmentalsustainability

> Effort of documentation

cultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: GOImplementation:Implementing energy efficiency improvements isa multi-phase process. Phase I: receive an OPALCOsnapshot. Phase II: (optional) get a solar site assessment if it is possible that a home may have goodsolar potential. Phase III: contact Islanders bankrepresentative, establish regular rates and loanpackages for qualified families and businesses.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- -- 107

CONSERVE ENERGY AND SHIFT LOADS AWAY FROM PEAK HOURS

Automatic Meter Reading data will become available to residents by the end of 2012. This data will help residents track their energy use and compare their usage to similar households. Understanding how a householduses energy is the first step in better managing home energy costs. Energy cost, and electricity in particular, isoften remote from a consumers mind when they are consuming it. Conserving energy is essentially free, andconscious consumers can significantly reduce their energy use, bills, and impact.Furthermore, the greatest potential driver of electricity rate increases in the short-run is demand growth. Byshifting electricity loads away from the winter morning peak hours, individual families can help keep electricityrates from increasing unnecessarily.PROS

CONS

> Low Cost

> Simple measures are easy and become habitsenvironmentalsustainability

> Conservation often requires sacrifices in lifestyle that

beyond a certain threshold are unacceptable to mostcultural

resilience &

acceptability

adaptability

Recommendation: GOImplementation:We recommend immediate implementation of thisprogram. Encouraging citizens to monitor theirenergy use and shift off peak times can be donethrough education campaigns, competitions, andby discussing introducing variable electricity ratesin the future, preparing Lopezians to consider timeof use in their energy choices.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- -- 108

Common Ground Co-operative Housing

Common Ground is a net zero energy project thatwas completed in 2009 by the Lopez CommunityLand Trust. The mixed income development includes 11 homes, 2 rental units, and an office/resource center. The average home in CommonGround uses less than 400 kWh/month while average Lopez homes use about 1000 kWh/month.Four of the homes at Common Ground have beennet zero energy since the beginning of occupancy.Since 2009, residents have been monitoring electricity production from the solar array and usageper household. Analysis of this data shows thathouseholds with the same occupancy, living in thesame energy efficient structures, have greatly varying electricity consumption. One household of fourused 66 percent less energy than a similar household.

The difference in consumption is explained by occupancy behavior, an aspect of energy conservation

that is often overlooked. Electricity consumptioncan be reduced by simple measures such as dressing more warmly in the home, turning off the lightswhen leaving a room, or unplugging electronicswhen not in use.

Figure 13: Common Ground Consumption and Solar Production 7/2009-9/2011

SOURCE: Common GroundNote: Each bar represents an individual residence.

109

CONCLUDING REMARKS[electricity and heating]Lopez relies on the services of OPALCO for the production of electricity and its interconnection to thegrid on the mainland. Electricity from OPLACO isalso the primary heating source on the island. Localelectricity generation remains low on Lopez thoughthere are excellent programs in place to promotelocal production. Rising electricity prices, increasedenergy demand, especially for clean energy produced by hydropower, and other risks will presentmajor challenges to the sustainability of the currentsystem by the year 2025 if no improvements aremade.This section covered solutions to improve the resilience of the electricity and heating sector, favoring actions that Lopezians can take on themselves.The most important action Lopezians can take toimprove the resilience and environmental sustainability of their electricity and heating supply is toincrease local awareness surrounding energy useand encourage friends and neighbors to join existing energy efficiency programs and change behaviors to reduce energy needs. Changing behavioralone, as discussed in the report, can drasticallyreduce electricity and heating usage.

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions

110

C o n c l u s i o n

MATRIX OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

[conclusion]Lopez Island is far more than a summertime touristdestination in Puget Sound. Its diverse community of over 2,000 residents, vibrant multi-sectoreconomy, rich natural resources, geographic location, and climate present unique opportunities andchallenges to the islands long-term resilience andenvironmental sustainability. The preceding sections rooted their analysis in these factors, takingstock of the islands current practices and highlighting some of the risk factors to which the island iscurrently exposed.

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONHost seasonal community events to promote local

The potential solutions in this report that address

these risk factors are action-oriented. They areleverage points at the intersection of environmental sustainability (E.S.), resilience and adaptability(R&A), and cultural acceptability (C.A.) a combination that we believe is vital to the success of apotential solution. The matrix of recommendationsbelow summarizes all of the reports potential solutions, as well as our recommendation for action:Go, Research, or Hold. The matrix ranks the solutions not by topic area but by score on the threemetrics and by recommended course of action.

Increase the share of electric vehicles on the island

Harvest waste heat from sewage yard clipping incineration

Expand usage of school bus system for public transportation

Implement a commercial freight coordination system

HOLD

Diversify community-scale marine transport

HOLD

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- -- 113

ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

As with many complex projects, we found ourselves constrained not only by time but by geography and expertise. While the authors gathered asmuch information as they could while on the islandduring their research trip, one week was not nearlyenough time to collect all of the data, observations, and other information that we would need toprovide an even deeper analysis. Additionally, wefound our geographic distance from Lopez Islandchallenging as we conducted background researchand post-trip analysis. Our lack of technical expertise in many of the subjects that we analyzed onLopez Island also impeded our ability to provide amore technical analysis. As environmental policygraduate students, we have an excellent higherlevel understanding of how the systems analyzedin this report interact, but not a deep knowledgeof any particular system. Our collective knowledgewas horizontal across subjects, with only limitedverticality within individual topics. The ideal setupfor a report like this would entail a team of subject area experts, led by a generalist, located insitu for a long enough period of time to collect themeasurements, data, observations, interviews,and other information that an in-depth technicalassessment of possible sustainable transformationsfor resilience requires. This ideal setup beckons thecreation of a research- and action-based consultancy an idea that some of us may actively pursuein the near future.In addition to time, geography, and expertiseconstraints that future projects like this couldimprove upon, we believe that more accurate costestimates would greatly assist the assessment ofwhich potential solutions we recommend for action. Many islands, including Lopez Island, wouldplace the most importance on the cost componentof a potential solution. While we tried to providesome cost estimates throughout our potential solutions sections, we lacked the data and subject-areaexpertise to compile accurate cost estimates formany of the potential solutions. It is important tonote, however, that with a sufficiently distant time

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

horizon likely at least 20 years in the future cost

concerns can take on secondary importance if thefuture costs of inaction are sufficiently high, evenwhen discounted against the time value of money,to warrant a relatively large upfront investment. Acost accounting of this nature would greatly benefitany analysis of potential solutions, and future studies like ours should consider applying this accounting approach whenever possible.Lastly, while our report focused on the actionsthat Lopezians can take between now and 2025 toimprove the islands environmental sustainabilityand island-scale resilience and adaptability, it provided only a limited discussion in the appendix onbroader policy recommendations. County-, state-,or even national-level policies have a significantimpact on the implementability of many if not all of the island-scale sustainable transformations forresilience that we propose. Neglecting to analyzethe full push and pull power of these policies onour potential solutions presents a limitation to thedepth of our report.IMPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONSDespite the limitations highlighted above and theLopez-specific focus of our report, we stronglybelieve that this research has broader implicationsand applications. Islands with similar population,geographic, or climatic characteristics may find adirect relevance of many of this reports potentialsolutions and risk areas. In addition, many of thepotential solutions and risk areas that this reportidentified for Lopez Island would apply to landlocked towns and even cities especially thosewithout a robust public transportation system inplace, those that rely heavily on outside sources forfood and water, and those that have a high potential for energy efficiency and conservation improvements.Perhaps the most significant and innovative legacyof this report lies not in its research or findings, butin its use of environmental sustainability, resil-

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- -- 114

ience and adaptability, and cultural acceptability

as a framework for analyzing potential sustainabletransformations for resilience. Community and cityplanners, business strategists, local and regionalpolicymakers, and individual households can applythis framework to locate the leverage points of lasting change. Islands in particular could benefit fromthis approach. Often, traditional practices are moreenvironmentally sustainable and more resilientand/or adaptable to change than modern techniques. For example, Lopez Island historically grewa variety of produce, which reduced its relianceon external sources of food and exposure to fuelprice increase, and promoted soil fertility by avoiding monocropping. As economic pressures pushedfarmers toward haying while prices for a variety of

Welcome -- Transportation --

Agriculture / Water

produce available year round dropped significantly,

Lopez shifted towards a reliance on imports for themajority of its agricultural products. Looking out to2025, however, brings to light the environmentalunsustainability and lack of resilience and adaptability inherent to this modern practice. In thisinstance, increasing local production of a varietyof agricultural goods is a leverage point at theintersection of our three metrics. It is a sustainabletransformation for resilience that several of ourpotential solutions would help to make a reality.We welcome the readers ideas, reactions, comments, critiques, and questions. Please contact ourlead author, James Knuckles, by email: jamesknuckles@gmail.com

-- Waste --

Electricity / Heating

--

Conclusions -- -- -- -- -- 115

APPENDIX 1:

Broader recommendations outside the scope of

Lopez-specific actions

TRANSPORTATIONWashington State Ferry improvementsIn the preceding text, we sought to identify andevaluate actions that Lopezians can take to improve their transportation system, guided by theprinciples of environmental sustainability, resilience, and acceptability. The WSF forms a vital partof that system. As the primary means for movingpeople and goods on and off the island, it is botha transportation bottleneck and a risk area for offisland transportation flows should there be a service disruption. Reducing off island transportationOPTION

needs as much as is practical alleviates these impacts and is something Lopezians can control. Still,off island transportation is a necessity so improvingthe ferry system remains important to Lopezians.But, because the WSF is a state-operated regionaltransit system serving a diverse set of communities,Lopezians have limited ability to influence ferry system changes. Nevertheless, for completeness, herewe identify and evaluate several options to improvethis important connection to the mainland.

Some Lopezians argue that a ferry reservation

system would unfairly benefit those who plan tripsin advance, use the Internet often, and have reliable and convenient Internet access. From thisperspective, tourists probably stand to benefit themost from a ferry reservation system. We arguethat a stronger case against a reservation system(other than the existing one for commercial traffic)is that it would require significant lane restructuring in already crowded vehicle waiting areas atferry terminals, as well as extra processing time fordepartures.As for route changes, we think a compromisebetween the current route system and a dedicatedpoint-to-point route system warrants investigation.In order to limit the reduction in sailings necessaryto accommodate point-to-point routes with a fixedsize ferry fleet, we suggest reallocation of large ferries to serve direct island to Anacortes routes andsmaller ferries to serve inter-island travel. Directisland to Anacortes routes eliminate the need forvehicle quotas and reduces schedule slips.

To reduce ferry wait times and increase passengeronly ridership, we recommend route changesthat would also reduce wait times for the ferry. Tomotivate demand for passenger-only service, twocharacteristics would need to be in place: an appropriate fare structure to incentivize passenger-onlytravel and connectivity of the ferry system to landtransit corridors. Currently, neither of these is inplace. To accomplish the necessary change, Lopezians should first lobby WSF to restructure fares andin parallel work, with connecting transit services toschedule arrival and departure times coordinatedwith the ferry schedule. This will facilitate reduceddemand for vehicle service and higher demand forpassenger only service. As demand for passengeronly service increases, WSF can implement theroute changes to facilitate reduced vehicle waittime, namely point to point routes between Anacortes and each island with no vehicle quotas. Thechallenge would be coordinating the changing WSFschedule with land transit connections during thetransition period.

We also suggest exploring passenger-only ferry

expansion, especially on inter-island routes. Whilethis might require the acquisition of new pedestrian- and cyclist-oriented vessels, or reconfiguringcurrent smaller vessels to expand accessibility forthese riders, converting as many routes to passenger-only as practical has several benefits: shortertrip times, lower fuel consumption and loweremissions from smaller vessels, higher boat speeds,reduced demand for terminal expansion and vehicle holding areas, as well as reduced traffic onstate roads [95]. Even if the movement of commercial goods comprises a large portion of inter-islandboat traffic, these businesses should still be able toadapt their delivery schedules to less frequent butregular ferry service.

ELECTRICITY AND HEATING: OPALCO RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Change MORE to automatic participation with the choice to opt-outParticipation in the MORE program is currentlyopt-in with a default of non-participation. OPALCOshould consider making the default participation inthe program, with an opt-out option. This simpleaction would significantly increase enrollment inMORE without making the program absolutelymandatory. As discussed in Recommendations forLopezians, increased involvement in the MOREprogram would advance the growth of renewableelectricity generation on the island.PROS> Improves MORE participation rates> Simple change

We recommend shifting the default for participation in the MORE to enrolled for new customers,with an opt-out option. Psychologically, people areoften more comfortable with whatever is represented as the default normative option, and in thisway MORE can create higher enrollment withoutadditional marketing or education costs.

CONS> Some members may take issue with the approach

2. TOU Rate Structure

OPALCO also has a strong incentive to preventincreased peak demand growth both because ofthe terms of the contract with BPA and the costsassociated with their transmission infrastructure. Atime-of-use (TOU) rate structure, where electricityused during peak hours is more costly than electricity used in off-peak hours can incent customersto move some of their peak hours use to off-peakhours or to simply conserve electricity during thepeak. To be effective, TOU rates cannot be simplyvoluntary as only those customers who wouldbenefit from the rate without the desired behaviorPROS> Electricity conservation and use during off-peakhours is incentivized

change would volunteer.

In general electricity tariff changes can be politicallyprickly issues. However they are a powerful tool forshaping the energy future of San Juan County.Despite the likelihood of negative reactions to thispotential solution, we recommend implementingtime of use rate plans as soon as feasible, creating a built-in incentive for all OPALCO customers toconserve and prefer off-peak times.

3. Electricity Tariff Restructuring

Most obstacles to major changes in the residentialand commercial energy sectors are economic. Theutility customer feels the price signals from the energy economy in their monthly energy bill. Electricity tariffs can be designed and set so that consumerbehavior is altered in such a way as to solve a problem. A steep tiered rate structure can send a strongprice signal to customers with unnecessarily highelectricity consumption and incent them to investin EE improvements, adopt conservation practices,or offset their consumption with RE generationwithout hurting those who can ill afford a pricehike. Extra revenue from the higher tiers could beset aside for financing EE improvements or RE production incentives like the MORE program.PROS

At first glance, this appears to be a win-win solution

that charges the energy hogs while rewarding conservation. While its implementation would requireOPALCO to change its policies, it could instigatelong-term shifts in consumption with multipliedbenefits to reduced energy use and increased energy cooperative earnings. However, OPALCO wouldfirst need to answer significant questions of this potential solutions overall impact to their customersresilience to electricity supply disruptions, and itseffects on their electricity rates before implementing this policy change.

CONS

> Encourages greater energy savings and local distributed renewable generation> Does not need to increase cost burden on low income families> Simple to implement

> Requires wide participation to be effective

> Can shift load without reducing overall consumption

4. Separate customer class for seasonally occupied homes

OPALCOs operation and maintenance costs account for a majority of the energy charge paid bythe ratepayers. This imbalance between the utilities ratio of fixed costs to energy costs and the ratioof a ratepayers line charge versus energy chargeserves to promote energy conservation and helpslow income families afford basic electricity service.However, OPALCO members who occupy theirhomes only seasonally underpay for their service,but still contribute to wintertime peak demanddue to freeze protection measures in unoccupied

homes. This imbalance could be addressed by

establishing a second residential customer class forseasonally occupied residences.This recommendation would be very beneficial forOPALCO customers and overall energy efficiency,but may be politically impractical. Community focusgroups should be held to identify the plausibility ofthis suggestion, and OPALCO should determine theeffect of this policy change on the resilience of itselectricity supply.

Utility Financing is just like PACE, except that theutility is the entity that pays for the upfront costsand the principal and interest is paid back throughan additional fee on that customers utility bill. Alow interest rate can be justified to OPALCO members as compensation for the public good of theresulting energy savings or local generation, whichincreases the accessibility of this financing for lowincome families.Areas for Further Research:Electricity bill financing can be very attractive, butthere are some points of caution. Credit risk cannotbe ignored and it is not usually the function of coopPROS> Increases the ease of financing EE and RE projects

utilities to take on that risk. Furthermore, because

of credit risk, it may put OPALCO in a position thatwould require it to extend access to this brand offinancing to some members and not others. However, the potential of this model is worth consideration. To determine the feasibility of this modelfor the OPALCO area, further research is required.Namely, the value to the coop membership ofthe energy savings is important to know, as is theextent to which the interest rate charged to lowincome members could be reduced to reflect thatvalue, and which EE and RE investments will likelyrealize a positive net present value.

CONS> Against current regulations

ELECTRICITY SECTOR COUNTY AND STATE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The following policy recommendations focus onchanges at the county and state level that couldbenefit Lopez substantially. The scale of the electricity grid and the way that it is operated and regulated creates significant limitations for unilaterallocal action. Lopezians lowest level capable policyinstitutions are the county and OPALCO. Furthermore, many policy options can only be achievedat the state level or above. Policies that must be

implemented at the county and state level are not

easily or quickly affected by efforts of a small islandcommunity, but they are of utmost importance tothe electricity sector, and even a community likeLopez can help drive and shape these policies. Mostactions available at the island level are not potentialpolicies of the polity, but rather up to individuals tochoose for themselves and to encourage for others. In this section, we present some possibilities

for county and state level policies that could help

improve the sustainability and resilience of LopezIslands electricity supply and use.1. San Juan County: Streamline and expedite permitting process for renewable energy projects andenergy efficiency renovationsNot all obstacles to energy sector transformationsare economic. There are also significant politicaland regulatory barriers that often stifle investment and interest. Most obviously, the permittingprocess for RE projects can be troublesome. Forrooftop PV, permitting in Washington is straightforward, however for wind generators and other REprojects, there can be significant uncertainties andthe process can be byzantine and costly. Findingways to streamline the permitting process for REprojects so that developers can accurately predictthe feasibility of a project, time required to get apermit, and the cost of the permit, will help minimize the risk of projects.Another way that regulations can be shaped toincentivize RE is by protecting producers accessto the resource. A solar PV array or a wind turbineis a significant upfront investment with a usefullifespan that could extend to thirty years or more.For the system operator to realize the returns totheir investment, they must have access to thesunlight or wind at their installation site for a longtime. Establishing rights to RE resources can helpreduce the risk to RE system investors. It is alsopossible to have a public fund to indemnify investments in RE systems against the loss of access tothe resource.Other less obvious barriers may also be found inthe regulatory environment and positive steps cancome from a collaborative program between regulators, ratepayers, and utilities that would identifyregulatory issues and opportunities and proposechanges to codes and practices.

2. San Juan County: Consider Municipal Financing

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financingis way for municipal and county governments toextend access to low cost credit to property ownerswho may not qualify for or cannot afford privateloans. With PACE financing, the municipal or countygovernment provides for the upfront costs of an EEor RE project and the homeowner pays the publicback through a special assessment on their property taxes. In this way the public takes on part of therisk burden from the owner as a way of compensating the owner for the public good of the project.A 2010 Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA)policy has put PACE financing on hold for almost allmunicipalities and counties in the US. However, ifthe policy should change, PACE financing would bean attractive option for San Juan County.3. San Juan County: Create a Countywide forestmanagement planSan Juan County forests are an important renewable resource that needs to be protected and managed. While countywide management plans existfor Agriculture, Marine Resources and Wastes, aplan for Forests does not exist. Developing a ForestManagement plan at the county level would helpensure the protection and health of this valuablelocal resource.4. San Juan County: Change building codes torequire energy efficiency measures/ renewableenergy features when appropriateStringent building codes are one way to increasethe energy efficiency performance of the building stock. Mandating performance standards fornew buildings and major renovations is a bluntinstrument, and if the mandated measures arenot economical or their value cannot be capturedby the developer or owner then stringent codesmay increase the incentive to extend the life of theexisting building stock. However, direct regulationcan be more effective for energy performance gains

because they are not stymied by market failures

like the agent-principal problem that often plaguesmarket-based solutions.5. Washington State: Improve framework andincentives for community RE projectsThere are many properties on Lopez that do nothave access to good solar resources, yet manyresidents living on shady plots would be interestedin investing in solar if only they had access to aproductive site. Likewise wind resources are geographically disparate and the most economicallyviable wind turbines for Lopez are too large andtoo tall for a single homes needs. Community REprojects would allow utility customers to buy into a project and to receive credit on their utilitybill for the share of the projects production thatthey hold. This Virtual Net Metering would allowthose who do not have the geographic advantageof full sunlight to have similar access to RE incentives and benefits as those who do. Public facilitiesand spaces can be the host sites for community REprojects as well.Currently, incentives for community solar areextremely limited. In Washington, for residents toestablish a community solar project, they wouldneed to form a limited liability corporation, whichmay be unreasonably costly for smaller projects.However, the incentives that are available in theOPALCO area could only financially support a singleproject up to 5kW in capacity (where a single familyhome would normally have approximately 3kW ormore to offset their electricity demand). To be anattractive option on Lopez, community RE wouldneed significant policy changes at the state level.For a more detailed analysis of the community solar options available on Lopez Island see the Community solar on Lopez Island Feasibility study byClancy et al (2011).

123

APPENDIX 2: Lopez School District bus fleet and operations

In this appendix, we describe the Lopez Island

School District bus fleet and operations. These

assets may be of interest to Lopezians shouldthey decide to integrate school bus vehicles intoa broader community transit system. The SchoolDistrict maintains a fleet of 6 buses and 3 vansfor school transportation purposes. Table 6 summarizes the bus fleet capacity and age, and table7 summarizes the mileage covered by the schoolbus system for the 2010/11 school year. Typically,one bus covers each quadrant of the island fordaily student pick up and drop off before and afterschool. The four buses cover 170 miles per day orabout 42 miles per bus. An average of 23 studentsride on each bus and most are elementary or juniorhigh students. High school students tend to drivethemselves to school once they obtain driverslicenses. In 2010/11, each high school class hadroughly 20-25 students. The School District uses itsthree vans for various activities during the schoolday; however, no funding exists to operate thevans after school even though there is considerabledemand from students who miss the afternoonschool bus run due to extra-curricular activities.The school buses are used for large group extracurricular activities like team competitions and classfield trips [53].For the same school year, the school bus fleetconsumed 5,214 gallons of diesel at an expense of$19,162, or an average price of $3.68 per gallon.The School District purchases fuel at a discountedrate from a San Juan County facility on Lopez,located off-site from the school. All the buses runon ultra-low sulfur diesel, but none have biodieselcapability. The fleet average fuel efficiency is 7.45miles per gallon [53]. Because the buses must berefueled off-site, the School District is consideringpurchasing buses with larger fuel tanks when it istime to buy a new bus. This will reduce the frequency of refuelling trips.

The school buses have a 13-year depreciation period, after which County or State funds are allocatedto fund replacement buses if necessary [53].

Year

Capacity

2011

66

2008

54

2007

72

2007

30

2004

54

1995

unknown

Table 6: Lopez Island School District

bus fleet capacity and vintageSOURCE: [53]

Miles

Purpose

29,977 Transport students to/from school

999

Field trips

6,378

Extra-curricular activities (often to mainland)

1,510

Maintenance, refueling, training

38,864 Total

Table 7: Lopez Island School District bus fleet mileage in

2010/11 school yearSOURCE: [53]

-- -- -- -- -- 124

APPENDIX 3: A primer on Lopez Islands energy resources

Local GenerationLocal primary energy resources on Lopez arephysically limited to solar, wind, tidal, wave, andbiomass. How much each of these can and shouldbe harnessed to provide electricity and heating toresidents and businesses on Lopez is a function ofthe resource itself, the economic costs, the politicalfeasibility, and the appropriateness of the technology to the energy demand it must service.Solar PVSo long as Lopez is linked to the mainland electricgrid, solar energy will likely be a significant part ofthe future energy mix for Lopez Island, whetherthat includes substantial on-island solar electricity production or not is another matter. Accordingto the National Renewable Energy Laboratorysmodeling of photovoltaic potential, full sun siteson Lopez would average between 3.5 and 3.9 kWhper square meter of collector area per day [88]. Incomparison, Monterey, CA averages between 5 and5.5 kWh/m2-day. PV productivity is directly a function of solar insolation, which is intermittent anduncertain. Furthermore, over Lopez, the seasonalvariation is very pronounced. Output is greatest at

midday with clear skies in the summer and almost

negligible for long stretches in the winter.The nature of the resource presents the greatest limitations for solar PV. The productivity of PVsystems is highest in the season when demand forelectricity is lowest. On the other hand, summertime solar productivity can help service summerdemand in bad hydro years, and allow for excess capacity to be exported to other WECC states in goodhydro years. In this respect, solar is a good compliment for the electricity provided by BPA, and withthe incentives in place, grid connected and netmetered systems can be beneficial and economicaleven with the limitations of the solar resource onLopez.Solar Water HeatingSolar water heating (SWH) uses solar radiation toheat water directly without converting the solarenergy into electricity. When the direct normalinsolation is strong, SWH systems can provide asignificant amount of a homes hot water load andupsized systems can also be used to provide spaceFigure 14.SOURCE: Data from readingstaken at the Common GroundLCLT housing project

-- -- -- -- -- 125

Appendix 3: A primer on Lopez Islands energy resources

heating. On Lopez, the viability of SWH has some

major limitations. First, the disparity betweenwinter and summer productivity is so great that asystem that is not oversized for summer hot water loads would produce very little in the winter.Second, unlike with a net-metered grid-connectedPV system, production from a SWH system is nottransferable to other consumers and is thereforenot bankable. Heat produced with the SWHsystem above the demand of the household is ofno value. To optimize the economic value of a SWHsystem, it must be sized to a capacity that wouldprovide for the summertime hot water loads andwould be paired with a secondary electric heateror heat pump to make up the difference betweensolar water heating and demand, particularly in thewinter. However, on Lopez a home equipped with aSWH system would still be heating most of its water with the secondary energy source. The questionof whether it is better to install a SWH system at aresidence or to simply use the available site for aPV system with an electric water heater is one thateach resident should consider when exploring REsolutions for water heating.

WindThe wind resource on Lopez is best characterizedas highly variable and seasonal with a winter peak;weak at low altitudes and significantly better athigher altitudes. Peak production for wind turbinesand peak demand for electricity roughly coincidein the winter. The advantage of this is that windenergy can supplement hydroelectric power duringthe months with the highest demand for electricity.However, without substantial grid energy storagecapacity, the intermittency of the wind resourcefrom week to week, from day to day, and fromminute to minute is still an issue. In complementinghydroelectric power, winds winter peak is possiblya disadvantage. In 2011, a conflict arose betweenBPA and Washingtons wind farm operators as thatyears heavy spring runoff led to a glut of hydropower as the reservoirs approached full capacity.BPA ordered wind developers to curtail productionin order to prevent over-generation. While instances such as these have been few, with increasedmarket penetration in the Pacific Northwest, balancing hydro with wind will be more of a challenge.Figure 15. Monthly Wind SpeedAverages at 30 and 50 metersSOURCE: Meyer, Terrance P:E &Rose Woofenden. Lopez Community Land Trust Final WindEnergy Report. 2007

126

Appendix 3: A primer on Lopez Islands energy resources

On Lopez, siting for wind turbines has both advantages and disadvantages. The extent of the treecover on the Island limits the potential sites forwind generators on Lopez. The blade sweep of aturbine must be above the height of the nearbytrees in order to limit the productivity reductionscaused by turbulence (for household scale turbines, a rule of thumb is 30 feet above anythingwithin 500 feet). Alternatively, Lopez has a substantial amount of open space cultivated lands.Wind turbines and cultivated lands mix well sincethe footprint of turbines is minimal and they donot monopolize the solar insolation so land usedfor cultivation can host wind turbines withoutsignificantly impacting agricultural productivity.Politically, siting and permitting a wind turbine ismuch more difficult than for solar. This is primarilya factor of the economies of scale for wind and theaesthetics and mechanism of wind turbines themselves.Wave and Tidal EnergyThe development of wave and tidal energy hasbeen accelerating worldwide. Various pilot projectshave been operating for a number of years, highlighting the technical potential of the technologies.Commercial scale plants are now coming online.Wave energy is intermittent in the same way assolar or wind, but tidal energy is different. Tidalenergy fluctuates predictably and reliably accordingto the gravitational influence of the moon and thesun. The wave energy potential around Lopez andthe other San Juan Islands is not well studied andfurther research is needed to properly analyze thelocal potential. Unlike the other renewable energysources, with tidal energy, the San Juan Islandshave a significant geographic advantage as thatthey are flanked by the chokepoints of the northern channel of the Puget Sound.Currently both forms of ocean energy are very expensive, more so than even PV on a cost per MWh

Figure 16: Maximum Tidal Current Speed Map

SOURCE: University of Washington, http://www.washington.edu/research/energy/researcher/mitsuhiro-kawase

basis. However, the technologies are young and

costs are expected to continue to decline over time by what factor is still very uncertain, but if oceanenergy systems become commercially competitive,the channels around the San Juans may be amongthe most ideal sites in the US. Unfortunately, oceanenergy projects would face political hurdles as wellbecause of concerns over environmental impact,competing use, and in the case of wave generators aesthetics as well.

127

Appendix 3: A primer on Lopez Islands energy resources

The image on the previous page shows the maximum tidal current speed in Puget Sound, the SanJuan Islands and the eastern Strait of Juan de Fucafrom the NNMREC three-dimensional model oftidal currents in the Washington inshore waters.BiomassMany Lopez residents already provide much oftheir home heating with locally sourced biomass.Firewood from local forests is inexpensive, potentially sustainable, and reasonably abundant. Usinga wood-burning furnace to heat a home also helpsto reduce peak demand for electricity. Shiftingsome percentage of home heating loads from electricity to sustainably sourced local firewood wouldhelp smooth out electricity demand, which benefitsOPALCO and its members. The drawbacks of usinglocal biomass are the limitation of the resource, thepoint-of-use pollution, and the labor involved. Using local biomass to generate electricity would beinefficient relative to direct-use home heating, andit is very unlikely that the local forests are productive enough to sustainably provide enough energyto make up a substantial share of the islandspotential electricity generation. Most of the foreston Lopez would benefit from having some of thedense douglas firs thinned out. In this respect, thecurrent ideal short-term yield from the forests issubstantially higher than the long-term sustainableyield. Harvesting of wood from the forest could beramped up in the near term, decline over time, andlevel off at a sustainable and well managed level inthe future.